DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 2/4/2026 wherein claims 5-10 and 20 are canceled and claims 1-4, 11-19 and 21-22 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/4/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 11-19 and 21-22 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 openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape in the axial direction" in lines 6-8. It is unclear if the claim requires the second set of openings to be elliptical in shape in the axial direction or if the claim requires that teardrop shaped openings and elliptical shaped openings to alternate in the axial direction.
Claims 2-4 and 22 are rejected for the same reason above based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape in the axial direction" in lines 8-10. It is unclear if the claim requires the second set of openings to be elliptical in shape in the axial direction or if the claim requires that teardrop shaped openings and elliptical shaped openings to alternate in the axial direction.
Claims 12-19 and 21 are rejected for the same reason discussed above based on their dependency to claim 11.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2019/0178498) in view of Boardman et al. (US 2020/0158343), Boardman et al. (US 2022/0357038), and Means et al. (US 2014/0116054).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Wilson teaches (Figures 1-16) a blade fuel injector (210A) for a gas turbine engine (1000), comprising:
a mixer (260); and
a blade injector (250), the blade injector (250) being located within (see Figure 8) the mixer (260), the blade injector (250) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (252).
Wilson further teaches (Figures 1-16) that the blade injector (210A) is oriented radially inward towards the combustion zone (100), wherein the blade injector (210A) has an injector axis (268), wherein the injector axis (268) is perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis extending through the combustor (100; see Figures 4-9) and the fuel nozzle axis is aligned with a radial direction of the gas turbine engine (see Figures 4-9).
Wilson does not teach that the mixer has a first set of openings located on opposite sides of the mixer and a second set of openings located radially below the first set of openings, the second set of openings being located on opposite sides of the mixer and the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape in the axial direction or a plurality of atomizers in the injector, wherein some of the first set of openings align with the plurality of atomizers.
Boardman ‘343 teaches (Figures 1-7) a fuel injector (100) having a mixer (110, forming mixing passage 115), the mixer (110) having a first set of openings (the upstream row of openings 113, at opposing sides; see Figures 3-5) located on opposite sides (see Figures 3-5) of the mixer (110), and a second set of openings (the downstream row of openings 113, at opposing sides; see Figures 3-5) located below (with respect to a fuel nozzle axis 112; see Figures 3-4) the first set of openings (the upstream row of openings 113; see Figures 3-5), the second set of openings (the downstream row of openings 113, at opposing sides; see Figures 3-5) being located on opposite sides (see Figures 3-5) of the mixer (110), wherein some of the first set of openings (the upstream row of openings 113, at opposing sides; see Figures 3-5) align with (see Figure 5) a plurality of fuel injection ports (149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson to have the fuel injector include a first set of openings located on opposite sides of the mixer and a second set of openings located below the first set of openings, the second set of openings being located on opposite sides of the mixer, wherein some of the first set of openings align with the plurality of fuel injection ports, as taught by Boardman ‘343, in order to provide a radial flow of air through the mixing passage to mix with a flow of liquid or gaseous fuel (Paragraph 0055 of Boardman ‘343). Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343 does not teach, as discussed so far, the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape in the axial direction, wherein the plurality of fuel injection ports include a plurality of atomizers.
Boardman ‘038 teaches (Figures 1-16) a first set of openings (123) and a second set of openings (122, 124), wherein the second set of openings (122, 124) are of teardrop in shape (at 124; see Figure 4) and elliptical in shape (at 122; see Figure 4) and the openings that are teardrop in shape (124) are located in an alternating pattern (openings 122 being located between openings 124; see Figure 4) with respect to the second set of openings (122) that are elliptical in shape (see Figure 4) along a circumferential direction about the fuel nozzle axis (134).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343 to have the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape along a circumferential direction about the fuel nozzle axis, as taught by Boardman ‘038, in order to provide multiple stages of airflow into the premixture (Paragraph 0042 of Boardman ‘038). It is additionally noted that it has been held the variations in shape were a matter of choice and only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ (CCPA 1966). Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343 and Boardman ‘038 does not teach wherein the plurality of fuel injection ports include a plurality of atomizers.
Means teaches (Figures 1-6) a fuel injector (46) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (84) that are either shaped to atomize liquid fuel or include atomizer (86; see Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343 to have the fuel injection ports include an atomizer, as taught by Means, in order to transition the liquid fuel to a mist or spray as it passes through the fuel ports (Paragraph 0038 of Means).
Regarding Claim 2, Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038 and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038 and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the first set of openings is a pair of opposing elongated openings.
Boardman ‘343 teaches (Figures 1-7) a fuel injector (100) having a mixer (110, forming mixing passage 115), the mixer (110) having a first set of openings (the upstream row of openings 113, at opposing sides; see Figures 3-5), and a second set of openings (the downstream row of openings 113, at opposing sides; see Figures 3-5) located below (with respect to direction L; see Figure 3) the first set of openings (the upstream row of openings 113; see Figures 3-5), wherein some of the first set of openings (the upstream row of openings 113, at opposing sides; see Figures 3-5) align with (see Figure 5) a plurality of fuel injection ports (149), wherein the first set of openings is a pair of opposing elongated openings (two openings located in the upstream row of openings 113, at radially opposing sides; see Figures 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038 and Means to have the fuel injector include a first set of openings located on opposite sides of the mixer and a second set of openings located below the first set of openings, wherein some of the first set of openings align with the plurality of fuel injection ports, wherein the first set of openings is a pair of opposing elongated openings, as taught by Boardman ‘343, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2019/0178498) in view of Boardman et al. (US 2020/0158343), Boardman et al. (US 2022/0357038), and Means et al. (US 2014/0116054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kress et al. (US 5,865,024).
Regarding Claim 3, Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038, and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the blade injector is removably installed into the mixer.
Kress teaches (Figures 1-5) a fuel injector (50) and a mixer (24), wherein the injector (50) is removably installed (see Column 4, lines 15-28 and claim 7) into the mixer (24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038, and Means to have the blade injector is removably installed into the mixer, as taught by Kress, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969).
Regarding Claim 4, Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038, and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the blade injector and mixer are formed as a single unitary unit wherein the blade injector is not removable from the mixer.
Kress teaches (Figures 1-5) a fuel injector (50) and a mixer (24) that are formed as a single unitary unit (see Figure 5, Column 4, line 57 – Column 5, line 7, and claim 8) wherein the injector (50) is not removable from (see Figure 5, Column 4, line 57 – Column 5, line 7, and claim 8) the mixer (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson in view of Boardman ‘343, Boardman ‘038, and Means to have the injector and mixer formed as a single unitary unit wherein the injector is not removable from the mixer, as taught by Kress, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
Claims 1-2, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon et al. (US 2018/0328588) in view of Ogata et al. (US 2017/0356656), Boardman et al. (US 2022/0357038), and Means et al. (US 2014/0116054).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Lemon teaches (Figures 1-17) a blade fuel injector (300a-h) for a gas turbine engine (10), comprising:
a mixer (304), the mixer having a first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352) located on opposite sides (see Figures 4-9 and 11-15) of the mixer (304) and a second set of openings (372, 382 in Figures 9-10; 372, 392 in Figures 11-12; 1362 in Figures 13-14; 1372, 1382 in Figure 15, wherein the openings can be in fluid communication with a source of compressed air; see Paragraph 0074) located radially below (see Figures 8-15) the first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352), the second set of openings (372, 382 in Figures 9-10; 372, 392 in Figures 11-12; 1362 in Figures 13-14; 1372, 1382 in Figure 15, wherein the openings can be in fluid communication with a source of compressed air; see Paragraph 0074) being located on opposite sides (see Figures 13-14) of the mixer (304); and
a blade injector (340), the blade injector (340) being located within (see Figures 4-5, 8-11, 13 and 15) the mixer (304), the blade injector (340) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (354), wherein some of the first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352) align with the plurality of fuel injection ports (354) when the blade injector (340) is located within (see Figures 4-5, 8-11, 13 and 15) the mixer (304).
Lemon further teaches (Figures 1-17) that the blade injector (300a-h) is oriented radially inward towards the combustion zone (160), wherein the blade injector (300a-h) has an injector axis (312), wherein the injector axis (312) is perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis extending through the combustor (170; see Figures 2 and 8-11) and the fuel nozzle axis is aligned with a radial direction of the combustor (24).
Lemon does not teach the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape in the axial direction or a plurality of atomizers in the injector or that some of the first set of openings align with the plurality of atomizers.
Ogata teaches (Figures 1-11) a fuel injector (36) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (384, 381) and a mixer (364), the mixer (364) having a set of first openings (370) and a set of second openings (393) located below (see Figure 7) the first set of openings (370), wherein some of the first set of openings (370) align with the plurality of fuel injection ports (384, 381; see Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon to have some of the first set of openings align with the plurality of fuel injection ports, as taught by Ogata, in order to generate a uniform concentration distribution of an air-fuel mixture without a risk of retention in a viscous boundary layer in the upstream end portion of a premixing flow path (Paragraph 0056 of Ogata). Lemon in view of Ogata does not teach, as discussed so far, the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape, wherein the plurality of fuel injection ports include a plurality of atomizers.
Boardman ‘038 teaches (Figures 1-16) a first set of openings (123) and a second set of openings (122, 124), wherein the second set of openings (122, 124) are of teardrop in shape (at 124; see Figure 4) and elliptical in shape (at 122; see Figure 4) and the openings that are teardrop in shape (124) are located in an alternating pattern (openings 122 being located between openings 124; see Figure 4) with respect to the second set of openings (122) that are elliptical in shape (see Figure 4) along a circumferential direction about the fuel nozzle axis (134).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata to have the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape along a circumferential direction about the fuel nozzle axis, as taught by Boardman ‘038, in order to provide multiple stages of airflow into the premixture (Paragraph 0042 of Boardman ‘038). It is additionally noted that it has been held the variations in shape were a matter of choice and only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ (CCPA 1966). Lemon in view of Ogata ‘343 and Boardman ‘038 does not teach wherein the plurality of fuel injection ports include a plurality of atomizers.
Means teaches (Figures 1-6) a fuel injector (46) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (84) that are either shaped to atomize liquid fuel or include atomizer (86; see Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata and Boardman ‘038 to have the fuel injection ports include an atomizer, as taught by Means, in order to transition the liquid fuel to a mist or spray as it passes through the fuel ports (Paragraph 0038 of Means).
Regarding Claim 2, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon further teaches (Figures 1-17) wherein the first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352) is a pair of opposing elongated openings (see Figures 4-7).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Lemon teaches (Figures 1-17) a combustor (24) for a gas turbine engine (10), comprising:
a plurality of pilot fuel injectors (122);
a plurality of blade fuel injectors (300a-h), each blade injector (300a-h) comprising:
a mixer (304), the mixer having a first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352) located on opposite sides (see Figures 4-9 and 11-15) of the mixer (304) and a second set of openings (372, 382 in Figures 9-10; 372, 392 in Figures 11-12; 1362 in Figures 13-14; 1372, 1382 in Figure 15, wherein the openings can be in fluid communication with a source of compressed air; see Paragraph 0074) located radially below (see Figures 8-15) the first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352), the second set of openings (372, 382 in Figures 9-10; 372, 392 in Figures 11-12; 1362 in Figures 13-14; 1372, 1382 in Figure 15, wherein the openings can be in fluid communication with a source of compressed air; see Paragraph 0074) being located on opposite sides (see Figures 13-14) of the mixer (304); and
a blade injector (340) the blade injector (340) being located within (see Figures 4-5, 8-11, 13 and 15) the mixer (304) and the blade injector (340), the blade injector (340) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (354), wherein some of the first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352) align with the plurality of fuel injection ports (354) when the blade injector (340) is located within (see Figures 4-5, 8-11, 13 and 15) the mixer (304).
Lemon further teaches (Figures 1-17) that the blade injector (300a-h) is oriented radially inward towards the combustion zone (160), wherein the blade injector (300a-h) has an injector axis (312), wherein the injector axis (312) is perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis extending through the combustor (170; see Figures 2 and 8-11) and the fuel nozzle axis is aligned with a radial direction of the combustor (24).
Lemon does not teach the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape in the axial direction or a plurality of atomizers in the injector or that some of the first set of openings align with the plurality of atomizers.
Ogata teaches (Figures 1-11) a combustor (3) for a gas turbine engine (1) having a plurality of pilot fuel injectors ( 32) and a plurality of a staged fuel injectors (36) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (384, 381) and a mixer (364), the mixer (364) having a set of first openings (370) and a set of second openings (393) located below (see Figure 7) the first set of openings (370), wherein some of the first set of openings (370) align with the plurality of fuel injection ports (384, 381; see Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon to have some of the first set of openings align with the plurality of fuel injection ports, as taught by Ogata, in order to generate a uniform concentration distribution of an air-fuel mixture without a risk of retention in a viscous boundary layer in the upstream end portion of a premixing flow path (Paragraph 0056 of Ogata). Lemon in view of Ogata does not teach, as discussed so far, the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape, wherein the plurality of fuel injection ports include a plurality of atomizers.
Boardman ‘038 teaches (Figures 1-16) a first set of openings (123) and a second set of openings (122, 124), wherein the second set of openings (122, 124) are of teardrop in shape (at 124; see Figure 4) and elliptical in shape (at 122; see Figure 4) and the openings that are teardrop in shape (124) are located in an alternating pattern (openings 122 being located between openings 124; see Figure 4) with respect to the second set of openings (122) that are elliptical in shape (see Figure 4) along a circumferential direction about the fuel nozzle axis (134).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata to have the second set of openings are of teardrop in shape and elliptical in shape and the openings that are teardrop in shape are located in an alternating pattern with respect to the second set of openings that are elliptical in shape along a circumferential direction about the fuel nozzle axis, as taught by Boardman ‘038, in order to provide multiple stages of airflow into the premixture (Paragraph 0042 of Boardman ‘038). It is additionally noted that it has been held the variations in shape were a matter of choice and only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ (CCPA 1966). Lemon in view of Ogata ‘343 and Boardman ‘038 does not teach wherein the plurality of fuel injection ports include a plurality of atomizers.
Means teaches (Figures 1-6) a fuel injector (46) having a plurality of fuel injection ports (84) that are either shaped to atomize liquid fuel or include atomizer (86; see Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata and Boardman ‘038 to have the fuel injection ports include an atomizer, as taught by Means, in order to transition the liquid fuel to a mist or spray as it passes through the fuel ports (Paragraph 0038 of Means).
Regarding Claim 12, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon further teaches (Figures 1-17) wherein the plurality of pilot fuel injectors (122) inject fuel in a combustion chamber (within 112) of the combustor (24) in a first direction (along axis 170; see Figure 2) and the plurality of blade fuel injectors (300) inject fuel into the combustion chamber (within 112) is a second direction (156) which is different from the first direction (along axis 170; see Figure 2).
It is noted that Ogata also teaches (Figures 1-11) a pilot fuel injector (32) that injects fuel in a combustion chamber (within 34) of the combustor (3) in a first direction (along axis 302; see Figure 2) and the plurality of staged fuel injectors (36) inject fuel into the combustion chamber (within 34) is a second direction (a direction perpendicular to 302; see Figure 2) which is different from the first direction (along axis 302; see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon further teaches (Figures 1-17) wherein the first direction (a direction along axis 302) is generally or substantially aligned with an axis (an axis along shaft 30; see Figures 1-2) of the gas turbine engine (10) and the second direction is substantially orthogonal or perpendicular to the first direction (see Figure 2).
It is noted that Ogata also teaches (Figures 1-11) a first direction (along axis 302; see Figure 2) is generally or substantially aligned with an axis (an axis along shaft 5; see Figures 1-2) of the gas turbine engine (1) and the second direction is substantially orthogonal or perpendicular to the first direction (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 14, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon teaches the “combustors 24 may be any type of combustor known in the art, and the present invention is not limited to any particular combustor design” (Paragraph 0038). Lemon in view of Ogata and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the combustor is an annular combustor.
Ogata teaches that the combustor may be an annular type having a plurality of fuel injection valves on a circumference thereof (Paragraph 0039 of Ogata).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means to have the combustor be an annular combustor, as taught by Ogata, since Lemon teaches that the combustor may be any type of combustor known in the art (Paragraph 0038 of Lemon and Paragraph 0039 of Ogata).
Regarding Claim 16, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon further teaches (Figures 1-17) wherein the mixer (300) is located in an annular outer plenum (142) and extends from an outer case (140) to an outer wall (114) of the combustion chamber (within 112) and the mixer (300) provides a path for air (118 to 352) and fuel (from 350) to the combustion chamber (within 112) and the mixer (300) provides a path (via 310) from the annular outer plenum (142) to the combustion chamber (within 112).
It is noted that Ogata also teaches (Figures 1-11) that the mixer (364) is located in an annular outer plenum (37) and extends from an outer case (35) to an outer wall (34) of the combustion chamber (33) and the mixer (364) provides a path for air (via 370) and fuel (via 382, 384) to the combustion chamber (33) and the mixer (364) provides a path (201, 202; see Figure 7) from the annular outer plenum (37) to the combustion chamber (at 33).
Regarding Claim 17, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon further teaches (Figures 1-17) wherein the first set of openings (the openings between 326 and 346, 348 defining flow paths 352) is a pair of opposing elongated openings (see Figures 4-7).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the second set of openings are in line with each other.
Although Boardman ‘038 does not teach that the second set of openings are in line with each other, Boardman ‘038 does teach (Figures 1-16) inlet ports (124) that are in line with each other (see Figure 5) can include any shape including (both a cylindrical portion and a slotted portion or merely a cylindrical hole; see Paragraph 0049) and also teaches that the number of stages and number of oxidizer inlet ports may vary depending on a desired fuel-air mixture to be obtained within the pilot pre-mixer (Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means to have the second set of openings be in line with each other, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the second set of openings in line with each other, since applicant has not disclosed that the second set of openings being in line with each other solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either the second openings being offset or in line with each other.
Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon et al. (US 2018/0328588) in view of Ogata et al. (US 2017/0356656), Boardman et al. (US 2022/0357038), and Means et al. (US 2014/0116054) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kress et al. (US 5,865,024).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon in view of Ogata and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the blade injector is removably installed into the mixer.
Kress teaches (Figures 1-5) a fuel injector (50) and a mixer (24), wherein the injector (50) is removably installed (see Column 4, lines 15-28 and claim 7) into the mixer (24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means to have the blade injector is removably installed into the mixer, as taught by Kress, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969).
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the blade injector and mixer are formed as a single unitary unit wherein the blade injector is not removable from the mixer.
Kress teaches (Figures 1-5) a fuel injector (50) and a mixer (24) that are formed as a single unitary unit (see Figure 5, Column 4, line 57 – Column 5, line 7, and claim 8) wherein the injector (50) is not removable from (see Figure 5, Column 4, line 57 – Column 5, line 7, and claim 8) the mixer (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means to have the injector and mixer formed as a single unitary unit wherein the injector is not removable from the mixer, as taught by Kress, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon et al. (US 2018/0328588) in view of Ogata et al. (US 2017/0356656), Boardman et al. (US 2022/0357038), and Means et al. (US 2014/0116054) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Natarajan et al. (US 2019/0072279).
Regarding Claim 15, Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the plurality of blade fuel injectors are located at a 45 degree angle with respect to a forward end of the combustor.
Natarajan teaches (Figures 1-8) that the plurality of blade fuel injectors (100) may be located at an angle of + or – 45 degrees with respect to a forward end of the combustor (see Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0040-0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lemon in view of Ogata, Boardman ‘038, and Means to have the plurality of blade fuel injectors be located at a 45 degree angle with respect to a forward end of the combustor, as taught by Natarajan, in order to have the injector thoroughly mix fuel and compressed gas to form a second fuel/air mixture to enhance the operating efficiency of the gas turbine and to reduce emissions (Paragraphs 0040-0043 of Natarajan). It has also been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the openings 113 of Boardman ‘343 are spaced along axis L and are not radially spaced and also argues that Lemon’s openings 362 are radially aligned and do no alternate in shape in the axial direction. In response, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The claims are not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by either Boardman ‘343 or Lemon. Instead, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2019/0178498) in view of Boardman et al. (US 2020/0158343), Boardman et al. (US 2022/0357038), and Means et al. (US 2014/0116054) and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon et al. (US 2018/0328588) in view of Ogata et al. (US 2017/0356656), Boardman et al. (US 2022/0357038), and Means et al. (US 2014/0116054).
As discussed in the body of the rejection above, Wilson teaches (Figures 1-16) that the blade injector (210A) is oriented radially inward towards the combustion zone (100), wherein the blade injector (210A) has an injector axis (268), wherein the injector axis (268) is perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis extending through the combustor (100; see Figures 4-9) and the fuel nozzle axis is aligned with a radial direction of the gas turbine engine (see Figures 4-9). In the same manner, Lemon teaches (Figures 1-17) that the blade injector (300a-h) is oriented radially inward towards the combustion zone (160), wherein the blade injector (300a-h) has an injector axis (312), wherein the injector axis (312) is perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis extending through the combustor (170; see Figures 2 and 8-11) and the fuel nozzle axis is aligned with a radial direction of the combustor (24).
Boardman ‘038 teaches (Figures 1-16) a first set of openings (123) and a second set of openings (122, 124), wherein the second set of openings (122, 124) are of teardrop in shape (at 124; see Figure 4) and elliptical in shape (at 122; see Figure 4) and the openings that are teardrop in shape (124) are located in an alternating pattern (openings 122 being located between openings 124; see Figure 4) with respect to the second set of openings (122) that are elliptical in shape (see Figure 4) along a circumferential direction about the fuel nozzle axis (134).
It has been held "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Therefore, providing the openings Boardman ‘038 in the injectors of Wilson or Lemon would necessarily have the openings alternate in the axial direction.
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 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights