DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 5/19/2026 wherein claims 3-7, 9-10, and 13-20 are canceled and claims 1-2, 8, 11-12, and 21-23 are presented for examination.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 11-12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinthorsson et al. (US 2003/0196440) in view of Prociw et al. (US 6,289,676), Prociw et al. (6,082,113), Mitani et al. (US 2018/0187891), and Schumacher et al. (US 2006/0272335).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Steinthorsson teaches (Figures 1-10) a fuel injector (40) configured to inject fuel (140) along a nozzle axis (49), the fuel injector (40) comprising:
a nozzle (60) comprising:
a fuel passage (100) extending along the nozzle axis (49); and
a swirler (102, 104) circumscribing the fuel passage (100) and including a plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98) that converge (see Figure 4) towards the nozzle axis (49); and
a cap (66) surrounding at least a portion of the nozzle (66 surrounds 64 and 62), the cap (66) comprising:
a peripheral body (91) circumscribing the swirler (102 or 104);
an end body (shown at 94; see Figure 4) joined to the peripheral body (91) and extending radially towards (see Figure 4) the nozzle axis (49); and
an effusion passage (annotated below) extending through the cap (66) to intersect at least one of the peripheral body (91) and the end body (94) from an inlet (annotated below) to an outlet (annotated below) at the exterior surface (see annotation below), wherein the inlet (annotated below) of the effusion passage (annotated below) fluidly communicates (see Figure 4) with a first oxidant passage (98) of the plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98), and wherein the outlet (annotated below) is radially outward from (see Figure 4) the plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98) and the inlet of the effusion passage (annotated below) relative to the nozzle axis (49);
wherein the effusion passage (annotated below) is configured to divert a portion of oxidant flow (flow 108 through 98; see Figure 4) within the first oxidant passage (98), and
wherein the effusion passage (annotated below) is sized (see Figure 4) such that a portion of oxidant flow (flow 108 through 98; see Figure 4) is diverted from the first oxidant passage (98).
Steinthorsson appears to schematically show, but does not explicitly state, that the effusion passage is sized such that the portion of oxidant flow diverted from the first oxidant passage is less than or equal to ten percent of the oxidant flow within the first oxidant passage. Stenthorsson also does not teach that each oxidant passage of the plurality of oxidant passages extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle, the end body includes an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis that extends in the same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages, wherein each circumferential angle is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees, wherein each effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface, and wherein each planar angle is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees.
Prociw ‘676 teaches (Figures 1-6) that the passages (56) that divert oxidant from another passage (54) are specifically sized to admit a predetermined quantity of air at the engine design point (Column 4, lines 55-59). Therefore, the size of the passages that divert oxidant flow from another passage are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that specifically sizing the passages in a fuel nozzle leads to admitting a predetermined quantity of air at the engine design point.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the passages can be specifically sized, were taught in the prior art by Prociw, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the size passages as taught by Prociw in order to allow a specific quantity of air at the engine design point. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is further noted that a modification to have the effusion passage be sized such that the portion of oxidant flow diverted from the first oxidant passage is less than or equal to ten percent of the oxidant flow within the first oxidant passage, as required by claim 1, would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Prociw ‘113 teaches (Figures 1-7) that each oxidant passage (62) of a plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a) extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle (22), wherein each effusion passage (64) forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis (the central longitudinal axis shown in Figures 3-4a) that extends in the same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676 to have each oxidant passage of a plurality of oxidant passages extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis that extends in the same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages, as taught by Prociw ‘113, in order to allow pressurized air to enter the combustor in a spiral conical form influencing the spray distribution of the atomized fuel and pressurized air passing through the nozzles or air passages (Column 4, lines 15-31 of Prociw ‘113).
Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676 and Prociw ‘113 does teach that the end body includes an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, wherein each circumferential angle is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees, wherein each effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface, and wherein each planar angle is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees.
Mitani teaches (Figures 1-35) a cap (75) having an end body (75b, 75c) having an exterior end surface (75c) that is normal to a nozzle axis (C), an effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) extending through the cap (75), wherein the effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) forms a circumferential angle (see Figures 12, 14, 16, 18, and 21) with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis (C), and wherein the effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) forms a planar angle (see Figures 12-21) with respect to an exterior end surface (75c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676 and Prociw ‘113 to have the end body include an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis, and wherein each effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface, as taught by Mitani, in order to have the air jetted out of the inclined flow passages flow over a wide area of the front surface of the leading end surface cover, so that the cover ring can be efficiently cooled (see Paragraph 0134 of Mitani). Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, and Mitani does teach that each circumferential angle is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees or each planar angle is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees.
Schumacher teaches (Figures 1-11) effusion holes (80) having a circumferential angle that is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees (about 75 degrees; see Paragraph 0011) and having a planar angle that is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees (about 15 degrees; see Paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, and Mitani to have the circumferential angle of the effusion hole be greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees, as taught by Schumacher, in order to direct cooling flow tangentially such that there may be no beginning to an effusion cooling film due to the cyclic nature of the circumferential direction so that an initial region of low film effectiveness may be reduced (Paragraph 0037 of Schumacher) and so that the length of the hole can be increased to increase the surface area from which the cooling flow can extract heat from (Paragraph 0031 of Schumacher).
PNG
media_image1.png
953
1250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Steinthorsson further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the effusion passage (annotated above) extends along a passage centerline (see the dashed line extending through the effusion passage annotated above) from the inlet (annotated above) to the outlet (annotated above) that diverges radially from the nozzle axis (49; see Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Steinthorsson further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98) fluidly communicate with a region (34) exterior to (see Figures 3-4) the nozzle (60).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Steinthorsson teaches (Figures 1-10) a fuel injector (40) configured to inject fuel (140) along a nozzle axis (49), the fuel injector (40) comprising:
a nozzle (60) comprising:
a fuel passage (100) extending along the nozzle axis (49); and
a swirler (102, 104) circumscribing the fuel passage (100) and including a plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98) that converge (see Figure 4) towards the nozzle axis (49); and
a cap (66) surrounding at least a portion of the nozzle (66 surrounds 64 and 62), the cap (66) comprising:
a peripheral body (91) circumscribing the swirler (102, 104);
an end body (shown at 94; see Figure 4) joined to the peripheral body (91) and extending towards (see Figure 4) the nozzle axis (49); and
an effusion passage (annotated above) extending through the cap (66) to intersect at least one of the peripheral body (91) and the end body (94) from an inlet (annotated above) to an outlet (annotated above) at the exterior surface (see annotation above), wherein respective inlets (annotated above) of the plurality of effusion passages (annotated above) fluidly communicate (see Figure 4) with one (98) of the oxidant passages (96, 98), and wherein respective outlets (annotated above) are radially outward from (see Figure 4) the plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98) relative to the nozzle axis (49)
wherein the plurality of effusion passages (annotated above) is configured to divert a portion of oxidant flow (flow 108 through 98; see Figure 4) within plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98), and
wherein each of the plurality of effusion passages (annotated above) is sized (see Figure 4) such that, collectively, a portion of oxidant flow (flow 108 through 98; see Figure 4) diverted from the plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98).
Steinthorsson appears to schematically show, but does not explicitly state, that each of the effusion passages is sized such, collectively, that the portion of oxidant flow diverted from the plurality of oxidant passages is less than or equal to ten percent of the oxidant flow within the plurality of oxidant passages. Stenthorsson also does not teach that each oxidant passage of the plurality of oxidant passages extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle, the end body includes an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis that extends in a same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages, wherein each circumferential angle is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees, wherein each effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface, and wherein each planar angle is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees.
Prociw ‘676 teaches (Figures 1-6) that the passages (56) that divert oxidant from another passage (54) are specifically sized to admit a predetermined quantity of air at the engine design point (Column 4, lines 55-59). Therefore, the size of the passages that divert oxidant flow from another passage are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that specifically sizing the passages in a fuel nozzle leads to admitting a predetermined quantity of air at the engine design point.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the passages can be specifically sized, were taught in the prior art by Prociw, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the size passages as taught by Prociw in order to allow a specific quantity of air at the engine design point. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is further noted that a modification to have the effusion passage be sized such that the portion of oxidant flow diverted from the first oxidant passage is less than or equal to ten percent of the oxidant flow within the first oxidant passage, as required by claim 1, would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Prociw ‘113 teaches (Figures 1-7) that each oxidant passage (62) of a plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a) extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle (22), wherein each effusion passage (64) forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis (the central longitudinal axis shown in Figures 3-4a) that extends in the same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676 to have each oxidant passage of a plurality of oxidant passages extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis that extends in the same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages, as taught by Prociw ‘113, in order to allow pressurized air to enter the combustor in a spiral conical form influencing the spray distribution of the atomized fuel and pressurized air passing through the nozzles or air passages (Column 4, lines 15-31 of Prociw ‘113).
Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676 and Prociw ‘113 does teach that the end body includes an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, wherein each circumferential angle is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees, wherein each effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface, and wherein each planar angle is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees.
Mitani teaches (Figures 1-35) a cap (75) having an end body (75b, 75c) having an exterior end surface (75c) that is normal to a nozzle axis (C), an effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) extending through the cap (75), wherein the effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) forms a circumferential angle (see Figures 12, 14, 16, 18, and 21) with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis (C), and wherein the effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) forms a planar angle (see Figures 12-21) with respect to an exterior end surface (75c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676 and Prociw ‘113 to have the end body include an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis, and wherein each effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface, as taught by Mitani, in order to have the air jetted out of the inclined flow passages flow over a wide area of the front surface of the leading end surface cover, so that the cover ring can be efficiently cooled (see Paragraph 0134 of Mitani). Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, and Mitani does teach that each circumferential angle is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees or each planar angle is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees.
Schumacher teaches (Figures 1-11) effusion holes (80) having a circumferential angle that is greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees (about 75 degrees; see Paragraph 0011) and having a planar angle that is greater than zero degrees and less than or equal to thirty degrees (about 15 degrees; see Paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, and Mitani to have the circumferential angle of the effusion hole be greater than or equal to sixty degrees and less than or equal to eighty degrees, as taught by Schumacher, in order to direct cooling flow tangentially such that there may be no beginning to an effusion cooling film due to the cyclic nature of the circumferential direction so that an initial region of low film effectiveness may be reduced (Paragraph 0037 of Schumacher) and so that the length of the hole can be increased to increase the surface area from which the cooling flow can extract heat from (Paragraph 0031 of Schumacher).
Regarding Claim 12, Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Steinthorsson further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the plurality of effusion passages (annotated above) diverges radially from the nozzle axis (49; see Figure 4) along the respective centerlines (see the dashed lines extending through the effusion passages in Figure 4) extending from the inlet (annotated above) to the outlet (annotated above) of each effusion passage (annotated above).
Regarding Claim 21, Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein each oxidant passage of the plurality of oxidant passages fluidly communicates with one effusion passage of the plurality of effusion passages.
Prociw ‘113 teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein each oxidant passage (62) of the plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a) fluidly communicates (oxidant passages 62 and effusion passages 64 are in fluid communication in the plenum upstream of 28 and in the combustor 14 downstream of fuel nozzle 22; see Figures 1-3) with one effusion passage (64) of the plurality of effusion passages (64; see Figures 1-4a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher to have wherein each oxidant passage of the plurality of oxidant passages fluidly communicates with one effusion passage of the plurality of effusion passages, as taught by Prociw ‘113, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 11.
Regarding Claim 22, Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein at least one oxidant passage of the plurality of oxidant passages fluidly communicates with two effusion passages of the plurality of effusion passages.
Prociw ‘113 teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein at least one oxidant passage (62) of the plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a) fluidly communicates (oxidant passages 62 and effusion passages 64 are in fluid communication in the plenum upstream of 28 and in the combustor 14 downstream of fuel nozzle 22; see Figures 1-3) with two effusion passages (64) of the plurality of effusion passages (64; see Figures 1-4a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinthorsson in view of Prociw ‘676, Prociw ‘113, Mitani, and Schumacher to have wherein at least one oxidant passage of the plurality of oxidant passages fluidly communicates with two effusion passages of the plurality of effusion passages, as taught by Prociw ‘113, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 11.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinthorsson et al. (US 2003/0196440) in view of Prociw et al. (6,082,113) and Mitani et al. (US 2018/0187891).
Regarding Independent Claim 23, Steinthorsson teaches (Figures 1-10) a fuel injector (40) configured to inject fuel (140) along a nozzle axis (49), the fuel injector (40) comprising:
a nozzle (60) comprising:
a fuel passage (100) extending along the nozzle axis (49); and
a swirler (102, 104) circumscribing the fuel passage (100) and including a plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98) that converge (see Figure 4) towards the nozzle axis (49); and
a cap (66) surrounding at least a portion of the nozzle (66 surrounds 64 and 62), the cap (66) comprising:
a peripheral body (91) circumscribing the swirler (102, 104);
an end body (shown at 94; see Figure 4) joined to the peripheral body (91) and extending towards (see Figure 4) the nozzle axis (49); and
an effusion passage (annotated above) extending through the cap (66) to intersect at least one of the peripheral body (91) and the end body (94) from an inlet (annotated above) to an outlet (annotated above) at the exterior surface (see annotation above), wherein the inlet (annotated above) of the effusion passage (annotated above) fluidly communicates (see Figure 4) with a first oxidant passage (98) of the plurality of oxidant passages (96, 98); and
wherein the effusion passage (annotated above) is configured to divert a portion of oxidant flow (flow 108 through 98; see Figure 4) within the first oxidant passages (98).
Stenthorsson does not teach that each oxidant passage of the plurality of oxidant passages extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle, the end body includes an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis that extends in a same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages, and wherein the effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface.
Prociw ‘113 teaches (Figures 1-7) that each oxidant passage (62) of a plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a) extends in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle (22), wherein each effusion passage (64) forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis (the central longitudinal axis shown in Figures 3-4a) that extends in the same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages (62; see Figures 2-4a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stenthorsson to have each oxidant passage of a plurality of oxidant passages extending in a circumferential direction relative to the nozzle, wherein each effusion passage forms a circumferential angle with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis that extends in the same circumferential direction as the plurality of oxidant passages, as taught by Prociw ‘113, in order to allow pressurized air to enter the combustor in a spiral conical form influencing the spray distribution of the atomized fuel and pressurized air passing through the nozzles or air passages (Column 4, lines 15-31 of Prociw ‘113).
Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘113 does teach that the end body includes an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis, and wherein each effusion passage forms a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface.
Mitani teaches (Figures 1-35) a cap (75) having an end body (75b, 75c) having an exterior end surface (75c) that is normal to a nozzle axis (C), an effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) extending through the cap (75), wherein the effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) forms a circumferential angle (see Figures 12, 14, 16, 18, and 21) with respect to a radial line extending from the nozzle axis (C), and wherein the effusion passage (see the flow passages 102-111 and 113a-117a in Figures 12-21) forms a planar angle (see Figures 12-21) with respect to an exterior end surface (75c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stenthorsson in view of Prociw ‘113 to have the end body include an exterior end surface normal to the nozzle axis and have the effusion passage form a planar angle with respect to the exterior end surface, as taught by Mitani, in order to have the air jetted out of the inclined flow passages flow over a wide area of the front surface of the leading end surface cover, so that the cover ring can be efficiently cooled (see Paragraph 0134 of Mitani).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 8, 11-12, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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 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 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights