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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 3 no longer reads on elected Species L drawn to Fig. 20 and is therefore withdrawn. In Fig. 20, lean fluid passages 190 and 112 are each coupled to wall 46 and are each annular and extend circumferentially around fuel nozzle assembly centerline 35 which is also shown in Fig. 3. Neither lean fluid passage 190 nor 112 defines a central axis that is angled radially outward as claimed in claim 3 which recites “the lean fluid passage is coupled to the wall and defines a central axis that is angled radially outward.” Claim 4 is also withdrawn as claim 4 depends from claim 3.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/26/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein regarding non-patent literature of the Extended European Search Report has not been considered and there is a line through that item on the annotated IDS since no copy of the non-patent literature has been provided. All other prior art on the IDS has been considered.
Claims 1-2, and 11-17 are currently being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the lean fluid passage” should read as – the first lean fluid passage --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-17 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 12 recites “the first lean fluid passage and the second lean fluid passage are coupled to the wall” while base claim 1 claims “a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner” such that the scope of claim 12 is unclear as to which is being claimed – the second lean fluid passage is coupled to the combustor liner or the second lean fluid passage is coupled to the wall which renders claim 12 indefinite.
Claims dependent upon claim 12 are also rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 12.
Since the scope of what is being claimed in claim 12 is unclear, rejections over the prior art cannot be determined for claims 12-17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “the first lean fluid passage and the second lean fluid passage are coupled to the wall” while base claim 1 claims “a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner” such that claim 12 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1. Claims dependent upon claim 12 are also rejected for the same reasons as claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Since the scope of what is being claimed in claim 12 is unclear, rejections over the prior art cannot be determined for claims 12-17.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster et al. 20140196465 as evidenced by and in view of and Laster et al. 20100064691, Joshi et al. 5590529 and Davis, Jr. et al. 20140260303.
Regarding independent claim 1, Laster ‘465 teaches a gas turbine engine (10 Fig. 2 para. 0015), comprising:
a compressor section (11 Fig. 2), combustion section (12, 16, 14 Fig. 2), and turbine section (15 Fig. 2) in serial flow arrangement (11, 12, 16, 14 and 15 are in serial flow arrangement in Fig. 2), with the combustion section comprising:
a combustor liner (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) that at least partially defines a combustion chamber (labeled in annotated Fig. 2; combustor liner at least partially defines combustion chamber in annotated Fig. 2); and
a fuel nozzle assembly (assembly including 19, 28 Fig. 2), comprising:
a rich fuel supply (32 Fig. 3; per para. 0019, mixer 32 supplies fuel 36 from valve 52 through first opening 34 and air flow 40 through second opening 38) configured to provide a rich mixture of fuel and air (44 Fig. 3; per para. 0020, fuel 36 and the air flow 40 are mixed in the scoop 42 to provide a rich air-fuel mixture 44), the rich mixture having an equivalence ratio of at least 4 and less than or equal to 10 (para. 0023 describes a rich equivalence ratio of the rich mixture is selected to be within a range between 3 and 10 such that 4 to less than or equal to 10 is within this range);
a lean fuel supply (labeled in annotated Fig. 2, per para. 0021 a portion of air flow 40 is mixed with fuel from fuel stages 19) configured to provide a lean mixture of fuel and air (per para. 0021, fuel from 19 and a portion of air flow 40 is mixed to produce lean air-fuel mixture 58 in Fig. 2);
a wall (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) coupled with the combustor liner (wall is coupled with combustor liner in annotated Fig. 2; a wall is evidenced by Laster ‘691 which teaches a similar combustion section (14 Fig. 1) as Laster ‘465 and shows details of a base plate 90, i.e., a wall, in Figs. 2-4, which is coupled with combustion liner 20 as shown in Fig. 2);
a rich fluid passage (42 Fig. 3) fluidly coupled to the rich fuel supply (42 is fluidly coupled to 32 in Fig. 3) to emit the rich mixture into the combustion chamber (per para. 0020, 42 directs rich mixture 44 into combustion chamber of 16 of combustion section); and
a lean fluid passage (labeled in annotated Fig. 2; lean fluid passage provides lean mixture 58 which is shown by flow arrow labeled 58 downstream of 19 in Fig. 2) fluidly coupled to the lean fuel supply (the lean fluid passage is fluidly connected to lean fuel supply in annotated Fig. 2; para. 0016 describes fuel from fuel stages 19 mixes with air flow 40 to generate lean air-fuel mixture 58) to emit the lean mixture into the combustion chamber (per para. 0016 lean air-fuel mixture 58 is directed into combustor 12 which is also shown by flow arrow 58 in Fig. 2);
wherein one of the rich fluid passage (rich fluid passage 42 is coupled to combustor liner surrounding 16 of combustion section in Fig. 3) or the lean fluid passage is coupled to the combustor liner and the other of the rich fluid passage or the lean fluid passage (lean fluid passage is coupled to wall in annotated Fig. 2) is coupled to the wall;
wherein the lean fluid passage is a first lean fluid passage (lean fluid passage labeled in annotated Fig. 2 of Laster ’465).
PNG
media_image1.png
774
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Laster ‘465 does not explicitly teach the fuel nozzle assembly is a gaseous fuel nozzle assembly, the rich mixture of fuel and air is of gaseous fuel and air, and the lean mixture of fuel and air is of gaseous fuel and air; wherein the lean mixture having an equivalence ratio greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.4; and wherein the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly comprises a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner.
Laster ‘691 teaches gas turbine engines combust gaseous fuels such as natural gas (para. 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fuel nozzle assembly in the invention of Laster ‘465 be a gaseous fuel nozzle assembly and accordingly the rich mixture be of gaseous fuel, such as natural gas, and air as taught by Laster ‘691 because gaseous fuel such as natural gas is suitable for combustion in a gas turbine engine combustor. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691 is silent regarding wherein the lean mixture having an equivalence ratio greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.4; and wherein the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly comprises a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner.
Joshi teaches a fuel nozzle which provides a lean fuel-air premixture at its exit plane with an equivalence ratio in the range 0.3-0.6 (col 5 lines 23-30) such that 0.3-0.4 falls within the claimed range of greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691 wherein the lean mixture having an equivalence ratio greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.4 by having a range of 0.3-0.4 as taught by Joshi to reduce NOx formed by the ignition of the fuel/air mixture (Joshi col 1 lines 7-11).
Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691 and Joshi is silent regarding wherein the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly comprises a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner.
Davis, Jr. teaches a combustion section (Fig. 5) of a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1). Davis, Jr. teaches a fuel/air injector 32 located at first stage 41 (44 in Fig. 5 is a typo since in all other drawings and in the description the first stage is 41) and another fuel/air injector 32 located at second stage 42 (para. 0043) and the injectors at each stage are configured to inject both air and fuel at each location (para. 0039). Relative to each other, the first stage 41 may be configured to inject more fuel than the second stage 42 (para. 0047), i.e., the second stage is leaner than the first stage. Modifying Laster ‘465 in view of Davis, Jr., a second assembly as shown in Fig. 3 of Laster ‘465 where the second assembly includes a second fluid passage 42 may be coupled to the combustor liner downstream of the first assembly at 28, 18 shown in Fig. 2 of Laster ‘465 with the second fluid passage 42 configured as a stage of lean injection, which injects less fuel compared to the rich injection of the first assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691 and Joshi wherein the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly comprises a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner to reduce emissions, particularly that of NOx, and enable higher firing temperatures (Davis, Jr. para. 0004).
Regarding claim 2, Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691, Joshi and Davis, Jr. teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the gaseous fuel comprises hydrogen (as discussed above in claim 1, Laster ‘691 teaches the gaseous fuel is natural gas and natural gas comprises methane which comprises hydrogen).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster et al. 20140196465 in view of and as evidenced by Laster et al. 20100064691, Joshi et al. 5590529 and Davis, Jr. et al. 20140260303 as applied respectively to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. 20230250960.
Regarding claim 11, Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691, Joshi and Davis, Jr. teaches all that is claimed above but is silent regarding the lean fluid passage is angled to emit the lean mixture radially inward and aft away from the wall.
Shin teaches a can annular combustor (Fig. 2) similar to Laster ‘465 for a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1). Shin teaches the combustor has a burner (1220 Fig. 2) with combustion nozzles (1230 Fig. 2) which provide fuel which may be gaseous (para. 0006) to be mixed with compressed air in an appropriate ratio suitable for combustion (para. 0054). A micro-mixer (1400 Figs. 2-5) coupled to the combustion nozzles is for proper mixing of fuel and air (para. 0056) and includes a wall (1420 in Fig. 4) coupled to a combustor liner (1250 Fig. 2). Micro-mixer 1400 has a plurality of mixing tubes 1410 coupled to 1420 through which air and fuel flow (paras. 0061 and 0063).
Shin teaches a fluid passage (labeled in annotated Fig. 5) is angled to emit a mixture of fuel and air (shown by dashed flow arrow pointing out of fluid passage) radially inward and aft away from the wall (in annotated Fig. 5, dashed flow arrow pointing out of fluid passage is angled radially inward and away from the wall as the flow is flowing away from the wall). Since the injection part 1430 of the wall includes the inclined injection hole obliquely extending as a pyramidal protrusion, the fuel injected through the inclined injection hole collides with fuel injected through the surrounding inclined injection hole of an adjacent injection part to form a recirculation area (para. 0069; see FIG. 5) such that adjacent injected flows of fuel may collide with each other to form the recirculation area and thus, the residence time is increased, thereby improving mixing of air and fuel (para. 0070).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combustion nozzles and micro-mixer assembly of Shin supplies a fuel-air mixture to be injected into a combustion chamber which is the same function performed by the fuel nozzle assembly including stages 19 and lean fluid passage in annotated Fig. 2 of Laster ‘465.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691, Joshi and Davis, Jr. by substituting the fuel nozzles and micro-mixer assembly including the lean fluid passage angled to emit the lean mixture radially inward and aft away from the wall as taught by Shin in place of the fuel nozzle assembly including stages 19, lean fluid passages in annotated Fig. 2 of Laster ‘465 as both types of fuel nozzle assemblies are suitable for the injection of a lean gaseous fuel and air mixture in a can annular combustor as well as the angled fluid passages coupled to the wall taught by Shin increase the mixing rate of fuel and air such that uniform combustion can be ensured so that carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, which are legally regulated, can be reduced (Shin para. 0070).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 5 of Remarks under 103 rejections regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 that since claim 1 has been amended to recite limitations (in the last lines of amended claim 1) that had been previously recited in claim 7, which is now canceled, Laster ‘465 in view of and evidenced by Laster ‘691 no longer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Then Applicant recites another limitation regarding the combustor liner includes a liner air passage being another reason that independent claim 1 and other claims are patentable over but that limitation was not added to Laster ‘465 in view of and evidenced by Laster ‘691. However, that limitation has not been added to amended claim 1.
On pages 6-7 of Remarks regarding the rejection of claim 7 Applicant argues it would not have been obvious in view of Davis to modify the invention of Laster ‘465 in view of Laster ‘691 to provide “a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner to reduce emissions, particularly of NOx and enable higher firing temperatures.” Applicant cites [0013] of Laster ‘465 and argues there would be no motivation to incorporate a second lean fluid passage coupled to the combustor liner since this would be contrary to teachings of Laster ‘465.
However, the 103 rejection of claim 7 relied on Davis, Jr. which teaches having two stages of downstream injection with the second having less fuel than the first, i.e., the second is leaner than the first, in order to reduce emissions, particularly that of NOx, and enable higher firing temperatures. Reducing NOx is also an objective of Laster ‘465.
Applicant further argues that Davis does not disclose whether either fuel-air mixture of the first stage 41 or second stage 42 is lean as defined in independent claim 1. However, as shown in the 103 rejections, Laster ‘465 teaches the claimed equivalence ratio of the rich mixture and Joshi is relied on for teaching the claimed equivalence ratio of the lean mixture. Davis is relied on for teaching a second injection downstream of the rich injection which is leaner than the first downstream injection, which in Laster ‘465 is the rich injection.
Applicant argues even if Davis does teach a lean-air fuel mixture in the downstream injection system 30 of combustor 12, Laster ‘465 explicitly discloses that lean fuel-air mixtures are undesirable downstream. However, Applicant does not provide a citation for this explicit disclosure in Laster ‘465.
Applicant does not provide arguments regarding the other prior art references or the other dependent claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm 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, 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.
/A.J.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741