DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 06/25/2024. Claims 1 – 20 are examined.
Drawings
Fig. 2B is objected to because there is a reference character “10” with a lead line pointing to the bottom of the page.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because the text is too small. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) states “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both the outlet end of the lean burn section in Fig. 2A and the quench air ports upstream of the lean burn section in Fig. 2B.
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 “…combustion reaction quench zone downstream from said relaxation zone; and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 1. In Figs. 2A and 2B, the relaxation zone/section ends where the secondary lean fuel combustion zone/lean burn section. Therefore, the “…combustion reaction quench zone” isn’t shown in the original figures. The Specification lists “quench zone” twelve times, but failed to link to a drawing reference character. No new matter should be entered.
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 “…said relaxation zone comprises at least one internal gas flow recirculation path” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 7. The original figures do not show “at least one internal gas flow recirculation path” in said relaxation zone. 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 Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, l. 4 “to form rich fuel a combustion product mixture” is believed to in error for --to form a rich fuel [[a]] combustion product mixture--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Duplicate Claim, Warning
Applicant is advised that should Claim 12 be found allowable, Claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 12 recites “wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage”. Claim 13 recites “wherein the ammonia fuel is mixed with the combustion air in the rich fuel combustion stage”. If the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage, then the ammonia fuel has to be mixed with the combustion air in the rich fuel combustion stage for combustion to take place within the rich fuel combustion stage. Therefore, Claims 12 and 13 are using different words to cover the same thing.
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 2, 19, and 20 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.
The term “sufficient length” in Claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient length” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specification Para. [0048] merely described “This relaxation stage may comprise a long residence time of the primary rich fuel combustion product mixture (such as in conduit, pipe, or tube of sufficient length to enable longer residence time to permit NO levels to relax toward equilibrium levels), or may comprise a chemical reactor stage, or may comprise an internal flow recirculation, or may comprise the step of introducing additional chemicals or catalysts into the relaxation stage to accelerate NO relaxation toward equilibrium.” The limitation “conduit of sufficient length” has been rendered indefinite by the relative term “sufficient length”.
The term “long residence time” in Claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long residence time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specification Para. [0048] merely described “This relaxation stage may comprise a long residence time of the primary rich fuel combustion product mixture (such as in conduit, pipe, or tube of sufficient length to enable longer residence time to permit NO levels to relax toward equilibrium levels), or may comprise a chemical reactor stage, or may comprise an internal flow recirculation, or may comprise the step of introducing additional chemicals or catalysts into the relaxation stage to accelerate NO relaxation toward equilibrium.” The limitation “conduit …” has been rendered indefinite by the relative term “long residence time”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the following claims:
Claim 9, l. 10 recites the limitation "the relaxation stage".
Claim 19, l. 2 recites the limitation "the rich fuel combustion stage".
Claim 20, l. 2 recites the limitation "the rich fuel combustion stage".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 8 – 11, and 17 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Selim (2023/0313995A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
1359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Selim discloses, in Figs. 1 - 3, all the claimed limitations including a fuel combustor (17 – Fig. 2) for a nitrogen-containing fuel (ammonia – Para. [0035]) comprising: a rich fuel (Para. [0038]) primary combustion zone (56, 62 – Para. [0037]); a NOx relaxation zone (58, 64) downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone (56, 62 – Para. [0037]); a combustion reaction quench zone (labeled, Para. [0050]) downstream from said relaxation zone (58, 64); and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone (labeled, Para. [0050] “…an abundance of oxidant or air may be added quench the reaction, control the temperature, and burn the remaining fuel…”) downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone (labeled).
Re Claim 2, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the NOx relaxation zone (58, 64) comprises conduit (40) of sufficient length (Para. [0036] “…as shown in FIG. 3, the second length 64 may be longer than the first length 62 and the second length 64.”) to provide a long residence time (Para. [0066] “…the combustion gases 34, the unburned ammonia, and the NOx produced from the first zone 56 may travel together through the second zone 58 over a long period of time with insufficient oxidants, which advantageously promotes the consumption of NOx, thereby reducing the emissions.”).
Re Claim 3, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the NOx relaxation zone (58, 64) comprises a chemical reactor (Fig. 4, Para. [0049] “…ammonia to break down according to the arrows 402. This advantageously promotes the consumption of NOx in the second zone 58 while simultaneously producing hydrogen as a byproduct”. In other words, chemical reactions occurred in the NOx relaxation/second zone).
Re Claim 8, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a combustion turbine (10 – Fig. 1) comprising a turbine (18) and at least one fuel combustor (16, 17) of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Selim discloses, in Figs. 1 – 3 and Para. [0030], all the claimed limitations including a method of combustion of nitrogen-containing fuel (ammonia – Para. [0035]) comprising: - delivering a nitrogen-containing fuel (ammonia – Para. [0035]) to a rich fuel (Para. [0038]) combustion zone (56, 62 – Para. [0037]) of a fuel combustor (17 – Fig. 2); - at least partially combusting (Paras. [0037] and [0048]) the nitrogen-containing fuel in a rich fuel combustion stage (region inside the rich fuel combustion zone) in the rich fuel combustion zone (56, 62) of the combustor (17) to form rich fuel a combustion product mixture (34 and 101, Para. [0037] “The combustion gases (which include NOx) and the unburned fuel 101 travel together through the first zone 56 and into the second zone 58”.), wherein the rich fuel combustion product mixture comprises NO (NOx is a broad category that includes NO., Para. [0037]) at levels above equilibrium levels (In a chemical reaction, the "equilibrium level" referred to the state where the forward and reverse reaction rates are equal, resulting in constant concentrations of reactants and products. In other words, the concentration of NOx would be constant at chemical equilibrium because the rate of NOx formation would be equal to the rate on NOx decomposition.); - permitting NO levels formed during the rich fuel combustion stage in the rich fuel combustion zone of the combustor to relax (Para. [0049] “This advantageously promotes the consumption of NOx in the second zone 58 while simultaneously producing hydrogen as a byproduct.” and Para. [0066] “…the combustion gases 34, the unburned ammonia, and the NOx produced from the first zone 56 may travel together through the second zone 58 over a long period of time with insufficient oxidants, which advantageously promotes the consumption of NOx, thereby reducing the emissions.”) toward an equilibrium level in a relaxation zone (58, 64) of the fuel combustor (17); - following the relaxation stage, delivering additional combustion air to the combustion product mixture in a quench zone (labeled in Fig. 3 marked up above, Para. [0050] “…an abundance of oxidant or air may be added quench the reaction, control the temperature, and burn the remaining fuel…”) of the fuel combustor (17); - delivering the mixture of the rich fuel combustion product mixture and additional combustion air to a lean fuel combustion zone (labeled in Fig. 3 marked up above); and - further combusting (Para. [0050] “…an abundance of oxidant or air may be added quench the reaction, control the temperature, and burn the remaining fuel…”)) the rich fuel combustion product mixture in a lean fuel combustion stage in the lean fuel combustion zone (labeled in Fig. 3 marked up above).
Re Claim 10, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the nitrogen-containing fuel is ammonia fuel (ammonia – Para. [0035]).
Re Claim 11, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are mixed prior (Para. [0009] “The combustor further includes at least one fuel nozzle that is configured to inject a mixture of fuel and a first portion of oxidant in the first zone.” and Para. [0034] “The inlet 41 of the combustion chamber 42 may receive a mixture of fuel 100 and a first portion of oxidant or air 102 (e.g., from the at least one fuel nozzles 61 shown in FIG. 2)”) to entering the rich fuel combustion stage (56, 62).
Re Claim 17, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a method of power generation (Para. [0030]) comprising: - combusting a nitrogen-containing fuel (ammonia – Para. [0035]) in the fuel combustor (16, 17) of Claim 1 to produce a combustion exhaust gas (34); - exhausting the combustion exhaust gas (34) from the fuel combustor (17 – Fig. 3, outlet 45); and - driving a turbine (18) with the combustion exhaust gas (Para. [0030]).
Re Claim 18, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the nitrogen-containing fuel is ammonia fuel (ammonia – Para. [0035]).
Re Claim 19, Selim discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the ammonia fuel (ammonia – Para. [0035]) and the combustion air are mixed prior (Para. [0009] “The combustor further includes at least one fuel nozzle that is configured to inject a mixture of fuel and a first portion of oxidant in the first zone.” and Para. [0034] “The inlet 41 of the combustion chamber 42 may receive a mixture of fuel 100 and a first portion of oxidant or air 102 (e.g., from the at least one fuel nozzles 61 shown in FIG. 2)”) to entering the rich fuel combustion stage (interpreted as the “rich fuel primary combustion zone (56, 62)”).
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 4 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selim (2023/0313995A1) in view of Shaw et al. (4,285,193) in view of Yoshimura et al. (2016/0136616A1).
Re Claim 4 - 6, Selim teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Selim teaches a fuel combustor for a nitrogen-containing fuel, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Selim is silent on (Claim 4) wherein the chemical reactor comprises a catalytically enhanced chemical reactor, (Claim 5) wherein said catalytically enhanced chemical reactor comprises a honeycomb catalyst support, plate-type catalyst support, or corrugated-type catalyst support with catalyst carried by said support, and (Claim 6) wherein said catalyst is selected from one or more of metal oxide-based, zeolite-based, alkaline-earth metal-based, and rare-earth-based catalysts.
Shaw teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5 and Abstract, a similar gas turbine combustor (Title) having a rich fuel combustion stage (Fig. 1 labeled “Rich Primary Zone”) followed by a NOx relaxation zone (Fig. 1 – zones 4 and 5) downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone, wherein said NOx relaxation zone comprises a catalytically enhanced chemical reactor (Fig. 1 – zone 5 labeled “oxidation catalyst”). Shaw teaches, in the Abstract, “…utilizing catalytic oxidation with excess air to complete the combustion and minimize NOx formation”. Yoshimura teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Abstract, Para. [0002], Para. [0003], Para. [0054], and Para. [0116], a catalytically enhanced chemical reactor comprises a honeycomb catalyst support (100 – Fig. 4(a)) with catalyst carried by said support wherein said catalyst is selected from one or more of metal oxide-based (Para. [0003] ““TiO2/V2O5/WO3 catalyst” in which vanadium oxide and tungsten oxide are supported on titanium oxide”).
Thus, improving a particular device (fuel combustor for a nitrogen-containing fuel), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Shaw and Yoshimura, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the fuel combustor for a nitrogen-containing fuel of Selim, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating (Claim 4) a catalytically enhanced chemical reactor, (Claim 5) wherein said catalytically enhanced chemical reactor comprises a honeycomb catalyst support with catalyst carried by said support, and (Claim 6) wherein said catalyst is selected from one or more of metal oxide-based would have facilitated increasing the reduction of the NOx concentration of the combustion gas flowing from the fuel rich primary combustion zone. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selim (2023/0313995A1) in view of Bulat (11,371,710).
Re Claim 7, Selim teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Selim teaches a fuel combustor for a nitrogen-containing fuel, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Selim is silent on wherein said relaxation zone comprises at least one internal gas flow recirculation path.
PNG
media_image2.png
727
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bulat teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, a similar fuel combustor (100) comprising: a rich fuel primary combustion zone; a NOx relaxation zone (Col. 7, l. 60 to Col. 8, l. 5) downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone; a combustion reaction quench zone downstream from said relaxation zone; and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone, wherein said relaxation zone comprises at least one internal gas flow recirculation path (66 – Figs. 2 and 3).
Thus, improving a particular device (fuel combustor for a nitrogen-containing fuel), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Bulat, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the fuel combustor for a nitrogen-containing fuel of Selim, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating at least one internal gas flow recirculation path in said relaxation zone would have facilitated reducing the NOx concentration of the combustion gas flowing from the fuel rich primary combustion zone. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claims 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selim (2023/0313995A1) in view of Design Choice.
Re Claims 12, 13, and 20, Selim teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claims 12 and 20) wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage and (Claim 13) wherein the ammonia fuel is mixed with the combustion air in the rich fuel combustion stage. As discussed in the Duplicate Claims section above, Claims 12 and 13 are using different words to cover the same thing.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Selim to separately inject the ammonia fuel and the combustion air into the rich fuel combustion stage because Applicant has not disclosed that “(Claims 12 and 20) wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage and (Claim 13) wherein the ammonia fuel is mixed with the combustion air in the rich fuel combustion stage” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Specification Para. [0057] discloses, “According to this embodiments, the nitrogen-containing fuel and air may be non-premixed, well mixed, or partially pre-mixed before any combustion process.” Claims 11 and 19 recite “wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage”. Therefore, Claims 12, 13, and 20 are mutually exclusive of Claims 11 and 19. The lack of criticality in the Specification and the mutually exclusive claims is indicative of the fact that the claimed non-premixed or premixed configurations are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as Selim’s, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Selim. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Selim’s teaching, in Para. [0009], of the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage because Applicant’s Claims 11 and 19 recite that configuration.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Selim to obtain the invention as specified in claim Claims 12, 13, and 20.
Claims 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selim (2023/0313995A1) in view of Smith et al. (2022/0333534A1).
Re Claims 12, 13, and 20, Selim teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claims 12 and 20) wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage and (Claim 13) wherein the ammonia fuel is mixed with the combustion air in the rich fuel combustion stage. As discussed in the Duplicate Claims section above, Claims 12 and 13 are using different words to cover the same thing.
Smith teaches, in Figs. 1 – 13, a similar gas turbine engine wherein the ammonia fuel (28 – Figs. 3 and 4, Paras. [0017] and [0068]) and the combustion air (arrows labeled “Air”) are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage (58 – Para. [0092] and Para. [0114] “the combustor 100 is configured as a fuel-rich (rich-quench-lean (RQL)) combustor.”). Smith teaches, in Para. [0093], “…the second fuel injector 38 may be configured to direct the second fuel 28 into the downstream combustion region 56 of the flowpath 22; e.g., the combustion chamber 57. Optionally (or alternatively), the first fuel injector 34 may also be configured to inject the first fuel 26 directly into the combustion region 56 without premixing”. In other words, the ammonia fuel (28) was directly injected into the rich fuel combustion stage (58) of the combustion chamber (57) where the ammonia fuel would have mixed with the combustion air prior to combustion.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Selim with the (Claims 12 and 20) wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage and (Claim 13) wherein the ammonia fuel is mixed with the combustion air in the rich fuel combustion stage, taught by Smith, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a fuel combustor for a nitrogen-containing fuel comprising: a rich fuel primary combustion zone; a NOx relaxation zone downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone; a combustion reaction quench zone downstream from said relaxation zone; and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone, and wherein the ammonia fuel and the combustion air are not mixed prior to entering the rich fuel combustion stage (region inside said fuel rich primary combustion zone), were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the non-premixed, i.e., direct injection, ammonia fuel injector configuration, taught by Smith, for the premixed, i.e., direct injection, ammonia fuel injector configuration of Selim, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ammonia fuel would have been directly injected into the rich fuel combustion stage where the ammonia fuel would have mixed with the combustion air and the mixture of ammonia fuel and combustion air would have burned to generate combustion products. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 14 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selim (2023/0313995A1) in view of Ito et al. (11,053,845) in view of Karan et al, “High-pressure and temperature ammonia flame speeds”, 13th Asia-Pacific Conference on Combustion 2021, ADNEC, Abu Dhabi – UAE, December 4 – 9, 2021, hereinafter “Karan” in view of Liu et al, “Kinetics Modeling on NOx Emissions of Gas Turbine Combustors for Syngas Applications”, GPPS-NA-2018-0055, Proceedings of Montreal 2018 Global Power and Propulsion Forum, May 7 – 9, 2018, hereinafter “Liu”.
Re Claim 14, Selim teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the pressure of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is in the range of about 1 to about 40 bar.
Ito teaches, in Figs. 1 – 3, Abstract, and Col. 3, ll. 60 – 65, a similar gas turbine engine having a fuel combustor (2) for ammonia fuel (Abstract) wherein the pressure of the primary combustion stage is in the range of 12 atmospheres which was equivalent to 12.159 bar which was within the claimed range of about 1 to about 40 bar.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Selim with the pressure of the primary combustion stage is in the range of 12.159 bar (12 atmospheres), taught by Ito, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a gas turbine engine having a fuel combustor for ammonia fuel comprising: a rich fuel primary combustion zone; a NOx relaxation zone downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone; a combustion reaction quench zone downstream from said relaxation zone; and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone, and wherein the rich fuel primary combustion zone has a primary combustion stage pressure of 12.159 bar (12 atmospheres), were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the primary combustion stage pressure of 12.159 bar (12 atmospheres), taught by Ito, for the non-disclosed primary combustion stage pressure of Selim, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., during operation the compressor of the gas turbine engine would have compressed atmospheric air up to a pressure of around 12.159 bar and supplied said compressed air to the fuel combustor where the 12.159 bar compressed air would have mixed with the ammonia fuel and burned in the primary combustion stage defined inside the rich fuel combustion stage to generate combustion products that would have expanded through the turbine section of the gas turbine engine to generate rotational mechanical power to drive the compressor and a load. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Selim, i.v., Ito, as discussed above, is silent on the temperature of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is in the range of about 1900 to about 2200 K.
Karan teaches, on Pg. 1, second column, first paragraph, that the adiabatic flame temperature of ammonia was 1800 °C which was equivalent to 2073.15 K (Kelvin) which was within the claimed range of about 1900 to about 2200 K.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Selim, i.v., Ito, with the temperature of the ammonia fuel burning in the rich fuel primary combustion stage is 2073.15 K, taught by Karan, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a gas turbine engine having a fuel combustor for ammonia fuel comprising: a rich fuel primary combustion zone; a NOx relaxation zone downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone; a combustion reaction quench zone downstream from said relaxation zone; and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone, and wherein the ammonia fuel burning in the rich fuel primary combustion stage had a flame temperature of 2073.15 K, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the temperature of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is 2073.15 K (Kelvin) which was within the claimed range of about 1900 to about 2200 K, taught by Karan, for the non-disclosed temperature of the rich fuel primary combustion stage of Selim, i.v., Ito, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., during operation the compressor of the gas turbine engine compressed air would have mixed with the ammonia fuel and burned in the primary combustion stage defined inside the rich fuel combustion stage around an adiabatic flame temperature of 2073.15 K resulting in the generation of combustion products that would have expanded through the turbine section of the gas turbine engine to generate rotational mechanical power to drive the compressor and a load. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Selim, i.v., Ito and Karan, as discussed above, is silent on the residence time of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is in the range of about 1 to about 5 ms.
Liu teaches, on Pg. 3, first column, last paragraph, a similar gas turbine engine having a rich-quench-lean (RQL) fuel combustor with a residence time of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is in the range of about 1 to about 5 ms. Liu teaches, on Pg. 3, first column, last paragraph, “The residence time of rich-burn zone is 5 ms and that of lean-burn zone is 15 ms.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Selim, i.v., Ito and Karan, with the residence time of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is in the range of about 1 to about 5 ms, taught by Liu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a gas turbine engine having a fuel combustor for ammonia fuel comprising: a rich fuel primary combustion zone; a NOx relaxation zone downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone; a combustion reaction quench zone downstream from said relaxation zone; and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone, and the residence time of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is 5 ms, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the residence time of the rich fuel primary combustion stage is 5 ms which was within the claimed range of about 1 to about 5 ms, taught by Liu, for the non-disclosed residence time in the rich fuel primary combustion stage of Selim, i.v., Ito and Karan, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., during operation of the gas turbine engine ammonia fuel and compressed air would have been injected into the inlet end of the rich fuel combustion stage where a mixture of said ammonia fuel and compressed air would have burned in the primary combustion stage defined inside the rich fuel combustion stage resulting in the generation of combustion products that would have flowed through the outlet end of the rich fuel combustion stage where it took about 5 ms to flow from the inlet end to the outlet end of the rich fuel combustion stage. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 15, Selim, i.v., Ito, Karan, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the residence time of the relaxation stage is about 20 to about 1000 ms. Selim further teaches, in Para. [0036], “The longer second length 64 advantageously allows for increased NOx reduction and ammonia breakdown, which results in cleaner more efficient operation of the overall gas turbine 10.” Selim further teaches, in Para. [0066], “In some implementations, the method 500 may further include conveying combustion gases 34 through the second zone 58 in a residence time of between about 6 milliseconds and about 12 milliseconds, … In this way, the combustion gases 34, the unburned ammonia, and the NOx produced from the first zone 56 may travel together through the second zone 58 over a long period of time with insufficient oxidants, which advantageously promotes the consumption of NOx, thereby reducing the emissions”.
Therefore, the residence time of the relaxation stage was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves 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 the greater the residence time, e.g., the greater the length of the relaxation stage, the increase in NOx reduction. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., that the relaxation stage/second zone had a residence time, were disclosed in the prior art by Selim, 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 at the time of the invention to modify the relaxation stage taught by Selim, i.v., Ito, Karan, and Liu, to have a residence time of about 20 to about 1000 ms. Furthermore, the range of about 20 to about 1000 ms for the residence time of the relaxation stage is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that a person of ordinarily skill in the art would have found obvious at the time of the invention.
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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Increasing the residence time of the relaxation stage merely involves only a change of proportions, e.g., longer relaxation stage, and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.
Re Claim 16, Selim, i.v., Ito, Karan, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the pressure of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is in the range of about 1 to about 40 bar, see the Claim 14 rejection above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in a gas turbine engine fuel combustor the pressure of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage (containing the outlet end of the combustor) was only slightly less than the pressure of the rich fuel primary combustion stage (containing the inlet end of the combustor) because the pressure drop from the inlet end of the combustor to the outlet end of the combustor was very small (around about 0.3 bar) so that a pressure of 12.159 bar (12 atmospheres) in the rich fuel primary combustion stage would have resulted in a pressure of 11.859 bar (11.7 atmospheres) in the lean fuel secondary combustion stage.
Selim, i.v., Ito, Karan, and Liu, as discussed above, is silent on the temperature of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is in the range of about 1600 to about 2050 K, and the residence time of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is in the range of about 1 to about 20 ms.
Liu further teaches, on Pg. 3, first column, first paragraph, that “…the RQL combustor significantly reduces NOx emission when combustor outlet temperature is higher than 1670K”. The combustor outlet temperature is equivalent to the lean fuel secondary combustion stage and 1670K was within the claimed range of about 1600 to about 2050 K. As discussed in the Claim 14 rejection above, Liu teaches, on Pg. 3, first column, last paragraph, “The residence time of rich-burn zone is 5 ms and that of lean-burn zone is 15 ms.” The lean-burn zone is equivalent to the lean fuel secondary combustion stage.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Selim, i.v., Ito, Karan, and Liu, with the temperature of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is in the range of about 1600 to about 2050 K, and the residence time of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is in the range of about 1 to about 20 ms, further taught by Liu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a gas turbine engine having a fuel combustor for ammonia fuel comprising: a rich fuel primary combustion zone; a NOx relaxation zone downstream from said fuel rich primary combustion zone; a combustion reaction quench zone downstream from said relaxation zone; and a secondary lean fuel combustion zone downstream from said combustion reaction quench zone, and the temperature of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is about 1670 K, and the residence time of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is about 15 ms, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the temperature of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is about 1670 K, and the residence time of the lean fuel secondary combustion stage is about 15 ms, further taught by Liu, for the non-disclosed temperature and residence time in the lean fuel secondary combustion stage of Selim, i.v., Ito, Karan, and Liu, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., during operation of the gas turbine engine ammonia fuel and compressed air would have been injected into the inlet end of the rich fuel combustion stage where a mixture of said ammonia fuel and compressed air would have burned in the primary combustion stage defined inside the rich fuel combustion stage resulting in the generation of combustion products that would have flowed through the lean fuel secondary combustion stage at about a temperature of 1670 K to reduce NOx emission and at a residence time of about 15 ms to facilitate complete combustion of any unburned fuel with the fresh oxygen supplied by the quench air thereby increasing fuel efficiency and reducing the emission of unburned fuel in the exhaust gases of the gas turbine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741