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 . This application is a continuation of application 18/337615 now patent 12098679.
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite: “the fuel comprising aromatics with an aromatic content of the fuel being 10% or lower by volume” but 10% or lower by volume includes 0% such that it is unclear whether the fuel does or does not comprise aromatics which renders claims 1 and 12 as indefinite. For current examination purposes the recitation in each claim is interpreted as: the fuel comprising aromatics with an aromatic content of the fuel being greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% by volume.
Claim 2 recites “providing fuel to the combustor having an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume” which is unclear if this is instead of the step recited in claim 1 which is “providing fuel to the combustor, the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being 10% or lower by volume, and one or more n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes,” or is in addition to the step recited in claim 1. For current examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as: instead of the step recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “providing fuel to the combustor having an aromatic content of 1% or lower by volume” which is unclear if this is instead of the step recited in claim 1 which is “providing fuel to the combustor, the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being 10% or lower by volume, and one or more n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes,” or is instead of the step recited in claim 2 which is “providing fuel to the combustor having an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume” or is instead of both the step recited in claim 1 and the step recited in claim 2, or is in addition to the step recited in claim 1 and/or the step recited in claim 2. For current examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as: instead of both the step recited in claim 1 and the step recited in claim 2.
Claim 13 recites “the fuel has an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume” which is unclear if this is instead of “the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being 10% or lower by volume, and one or more n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes” recited in claim 12, or is in addition to the fuel as recited in claim 12. For current examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as: instead of the fuel as recited in claim 12.
Claim 14 recites “the fuel has an aromatic content of 1% or lower by volume” which is unclear if this is instead of “the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being 10% or lower by volume, and one or more n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes” as recited in claim 12, or is instead of the fuel as recited in claim 13 which is “the fuel has an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume,” or is instead of both the fuel as recited in claim 12 and the fuel as recited in claim 13, or is in addition to the fuel as recited in claim 12 and/or as recited in claim 13. For current examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as: instead of both the fuel as recited in claim 12 and the fuel as recited in claim 13.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above are rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons as the rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-9 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoke et al. 20130199200 in view of Cayre et al. FR 3032010A1 (citations are from attached English translation), Bauldreay et al. 20180230393 and NPL 2012 Sadeghbeigi Fluid Catalytic Cracking Handbook.
Regarding independent claim 1, as best understood, Hoke teaches a method of operating a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1), the gas turbine engine comprising a staged combustor (56 Fig. 2; combustor 56 has 10 duplex nozzles and 6 simplex nozzles per paras. 41-42, such that 56 is a staged combustor in light of instant specification page 27 lines 6-10) comprising an arrangement of fuel spray nozzles (86 Fig. 3; para. 41) in which fuel flow is biased to a subset of the fuel spray nozzles (duplex nozzles 86D; per para. 50 overall (primary plus secondary) fuel flow to the duplex nozzles 86D is increased, i.e., biased to duplex nozzles 86D, in relation to the simplex nozzles 86S) adjacent one or more ignitors (duplex nozzles 86D are adjacent igniters 124 per para. 49) during a procedure (as described in para. 50, at low power conditions, valve 116 is closed and there is increased fuel flow to the duplex nozzles 86D versus to the simplex nozzles 86S), the method comprises providing fuel to the combustor (para. 41 describes the multiple of nozzles 86 (sixteen shown in Fig. 3) are arranged to supply fuel to the combustor 56).
Hoke teaches location arrangement of the duplex nozzles 86D facilitates starting (para. 0043) and although low power can be interpreted as little or no power such as during a starting procedure or a re-light, i.e., reignition, procedure, Hoke does not explicitly teach the procedure at low power conditions is a re-light procedure and Hoke is silent on the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being of 10% or lower by volume, and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes.
Cayre teaches a gas turbine engine (page 2 para. 2 describes an aircraft engine with compressors, a combustor, and turbines, i.e., a gas turbine engine) comprising a combustor (Fig. 1) which comprises an arrangement of fuel spray nozzles (14 Fig. 3) and one or more ignitors (spark plug 128 Fig. 3, i.e., ignitor, page 3 para. 2), and
a controller (30 Fig. 3; page 3 para. 1) which biases fuel flow to a subset of the fuel spray nozzles (a small number of fuel spray nozzles 14 each with respective valve 23 in respective supply pipe 15 in Fig. 3; page 3 para. 2) adjacent the one or more ignitors (per page 3 para. 2, the small number of fuel spray nozzles are preferably adjacent to ignitor 128 as shown in Fig. 3)
during a re-light procedure (page 2 para. 1 and page 3 para. 2 describe when a re-ignition, i.e., re-light, of the combustion chamber is necessary, a valve 28 in Fig. 3 is controlled by controller 30 so as to open the auxiliary circuit and to inject emergency fuel from an auxiliary tank 25 into the fuel spray nozzles concerned which are the two fuel spray nozzles 14 with respective valves 23; each pressure relief valve 23 automatically closes the main supply circuit when the auxiliary circuit is used; the outlet duct 126 comprises a calibrated section 127 Fig. 3 which adjusts the delivery rate of the emergency fuel to the two fuel spray nozzles close to the ignitor 128 Fig. 3 of the combustion chamber, and which are also fed in normal service by the main circuit line),
the fuel having an aromatic content of 10% or lower by volume (per page 3 para. 1, fuel in auxiliary tank has better ignition capabilities, i.e., re-light capabilities, and per page 3 para. 3 the fuel may be liquid fuel such as JP4 or gasoline or gaseous fuel such as butane, propane or hydrogen, where each of butane, propane or hydrogen has zero aromatic content which is 10% or lower by volume), and
one or more of n-alkanes (propane is a n-alkane where n- means “normal” which is a straight-chain alkane), iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes.
Propane, butane, and hydrogen each have zero aromatic content as evidenced by Sadeghbeigi since propane, butane, and hydrogen each do not contain at least one benzene ring which is required by an aromatic compound (page 1 of chapter FCC Feed Characterization).
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 Hoke to bias fuel flow to the subset of the fuel spray nozzles during a re-light procedure and to supply the subset of the fuel spray nozzles with fuel having an aromatic content of 10% or lower by volume, and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes as taught by Cayre to deliver emergency fuel after a shutdown of the combustion chamber in flight, in particular at low pressures or low temperatures at altitude (Cayre page 1 Description para. 1), and having the emergency fuel have better ignition capabilities to enable successful ignition and force a re-light (Cayre Abstract).
Hoke in view of Cayre is silent regarding the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being of 10% or lower by volume (see 112(b): interpreted as the fuel comprising aromatics with an aromatic content of the fuel being greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% by volume), and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes.
Bauldreay teaches a synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component SK1 blended with Jet A fuel resulting in jet fuel blends shown in Table 11-1 (see [0138]-[0139]), with several of the jet fuel blends 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 comprising aromatics with an aromatic content of the fuel being greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% by volume, with jet fuel blend 3-6 having aromatic content of 2% by volume. Per [0041] the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component comprises at least 99.5 mass % of carbon and hydrogen content and at least 50 mass % of cyclo-paraffin, where cyclo-paraffin is cyclo-alkane. Petroleum-derived jet fuels such as Jet A inherently contain both paraffinic, i.e., alkanes, and aromatic hydrocarbons ([0006]). Per [0072], the condensation reactions to produce SK1 result in branched (iso) or straight chained (n) alkanes as well as cycloalkanes.
With reference to Figs. 1-4 and Table 11-1, increased SK1 cyclo-paraffinic kerosene content in the jet fuel blends results in increased volumetric energy density which is desirable because higher volumetric energy density results in aircraft flying greater distances using the same volume of fuel, or in other words, with greater payload range ([0141), and results in decreased aromatic content which improves engine operability and lifetime and reduces soot emissions ([0142]), increased smoke point which is desirable because higher smoke point indicates a cleaner-burning fuel ([0144], and also decreased freezing point which is desirable because a lower freezing point enables a fuel to meet more stringent specifications (such as for AN-8) or to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments ([0145]).
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 Hoke in view of Cayre to have the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being of 10% or lower by volume, and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes as taught by Bauldreay to have higher volumetric energy density, decreased aromatic content and reduced soot emissions, increased smoke point and a lower freezing point to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments such as low temperatures at altitude, as well as the jet fuel blend taught by Bauldreay is at least partially derived from a renewable biomass feedstock comprising corn syrup ([0055] and Table 9).
Regarding independent claim 12, as best understood, Hoke teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) for an aircraft (para. 2), comprising:
a staged combustor (56 Fig. 2; combustor 56 has 10 duplex nozzles and 6 simplex nozzles per paras. 41-42, such that 56 is a staged combustor in light of instant specification page 27 lines 6-10) comprising an arrangement of fuel spray nozzles (86 Fig. 3; para. 41) and one or more ignitors (124 Fig. 3 para. 49); and
a controller (120 Fig. 6 para. 46-47) configured to bias fuel flow to a subset of the fuel spray nozzles (duplex nozzles 86D; per para. 50 overall (primary plus secondary) fuel flow to the duplex nozzles 86D is increased, i.e., biased to duplex nozzles 86D, in relation to the simplex nozzles 86S) adjacent the one or more ignitors (duplex nozzles 86D are adjacent igniters 124 per para. 49) during a procedure (as described in para. 50, at low power conditions, valve 116 is closed and there is increased fuel flow to the duplex nozzles 86D versus to the simplex nozzles 86S).
Hoke teaches location arrangement of the duplex nozzles 86D facilitates starting (para. 0043) and although low power can be interpreted as little or no power such as during a starting procedure or a re-light, i.e., reignition, procedure, Hoke does not explicitly teach the procedure at low power conditions is a re-light procedure and Hoke is silent on the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being of 10% or lower by volume, and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes.
Cayre teaches a gas turbine engine (page 2 para. 2 describes an aircraft engine with compressors, a combustor, and turbines, i.e., a gas turbine engine) comprising a combustor (Fig. 1) which comprises an arrangement of fuel spray nozzles (14 Fig. 3) and one or more ignitors (spark plug 128 Fig. 3, i.e., ignitor, page 3 para. 2), and
a controller (30 Fig. 3; page 3 para. 1) which biases fuel flow to a subset of the fuel spray nozzles (a small number of fuel spray nozzles 14 each with respective valve 23 in respective supply pipe 15 in Fig. 3; page 3 para. 2) adjacent the one or more ignitors (per page 3 para. 2, the small number of fuel spray nozzles are preferably adjacent to ignitor 128 as shown in Fig. 3)
during a re-light procedure (page 2 para. 1 and page 3 para. 2 describe when a re-ignition, i.e., re-light, of the combustion chamber is necessary, a valve 28 in Fig. 3 is controlled by controller 30 so as to open the auxiliary circuit and to inject emergency fuel from an auxiliary tank 25 into the fuel spray nozzles concerned which are the two fuel spray nozzles 14 with respective valves 23; each pressure relief valve 23 automatically closes the main supply circuit when the auxiliary circuit is used; the outlet duct 126 comprises a calibrated section 127 Fig. 3 which adjusts the delivery rate of the emergency fuel to the two fuel spray nozzles close to the ignitor 128 Fig. 3 of the combustion chamber, and which are also fed in normal service by the main circuit line),
the fuel having an aromatic content of 10% or lower by volume (per page 3 para. 1, fuel in auxiliary tank has better ignition capabilities, i.e., re-light capabilities, and per page 3 para. 3 the fuel may be liquid fuel such as JP4 or gasoline or gaseous fuel such as butane, propane or hydrogen, where each of butane, propane or hydrogen has zero aromatic content which is 10% or lower by volume), and
one or more of n-alkanes (propane is a n-alkane where n- means “normal” which is a straight-chain alkane), iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes.
Propane, butane, and hydrogen each have zero aromatic content as evidenced by Sadeghbeigi since propane, butane, and hydrogen each do not contain at least one benzene ring which is required by an aromatic compound (page 1 of chapter FCC Feed Characterization).
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 Hoke to bias fuel flow to the subset of the fuel spray nozzles during a re-light procedure and to supply the subset of the fuel spray nozzles with fuel having an aromatic content of 10% or lower by volume, and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes as taught by Cayre to deliver emergency fuel after a shutdown of the combustion chamber in flight, in particular at low pressures or low temperatures at altitude (Cayre page 1 Description para. 1), and having the emergency fuel have better ignition capabilities to enable successful ignition and force a re-light (Cayre Abstract).
Hoke in view of Cayre is silent regarding the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being of 10% or lower by volume (see 112(b): interpreted as the fuel comprising aromatics with an aromatic content of the fuel being greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% by volume), and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes.
Bauldreay teaches a synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component SK1 blended with Jet A fuel resulting in jet fuel blends shown in Table 11-1 (see [0138]-[0139], with several of the jet fuel blends 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 comprising aromatics with an aromatic content of the fuel being greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% by volume, with jet fuel blend 3-6 having aromatic content of 2% by volume. Per [0041] the synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel blending component comprises at least 99.5 mass % of carbon and hydrogen content and at least 50 mass % of cyclo-paraffin, where cyclo-paraffin is cyclo-alkane. Petroleum-derived jet fuels such as Jet A inherently contain both paraffinic, i.e., alkanes, and aromatic hydrocarbons ([0006]). Per [0072], the condensation reactions to produce SK1 result in branched (iso) or straight chained (n) alkanes as well as cycloalkanes.
With reference to Figs. 1-4 and Table 11-1, increased SK1 cyclo-paraffinic kerosene content in the jet fuel blends results in increased volumetric energy density which is desirable because higher volumetric energy density results in aircraft flying greater distances using the same volume of fuel, or in other words, with greater payload range ([0141), and results in decreased aromatic content which improves engine operability and lifetime and reduces soot emissions ([0142]), increased smoke point which is desirable because higher smoke point indicates a cleaner-burning fuel ([0144], and also decreased freezing point which is desirable because a lower freezing point enables a fuel to meet more stringent specifications (such as for AN-8) or to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments ([0145]).
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 Hoke in view of Cayre to have the fuel comprising aromatics with aromatic content of the fuel being of 10% or lower by volume, and one or more of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes and cyclo-alkanes as taught by Bauldreay to have higher volumetric energy density while having decreased aromatic content and reduced soot emissions, increased smoke point and a lower freezing point to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments such as low temperatures at altitude, as well as the jet fuel blend taught by Bauldreay is at least partially derived from a renewable biomass feedstock comprising corn syrup ([0055] and Table 9).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, as best understood, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Bauldreay further teaches
claim 2: providing fuel to the combustor having an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume (see 112(b): interpreted as instead of the step recited in claim 1: jet fuel 3-6 in Table 11-1 has an aromatic content of 2% by volume which is 5% or lower by volume as claimed)
and
claim 13: the fuel having an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume (see 112(b): interpreted as instead of the step recited in claim 12: jet fuel blend 3-6 in Table 11-1 has an aromatic content of 2% by volume which is 5% or lower by volume as claimed).
Bauldreay teaches with reference to Figs. 1-4 and Table 11-1, increased SK1 cyclo-paraffinic kerosene content in the jet fuel blends results in increased volumetric energy density which is desirable because higher volumetric energy density results in aircraft flying greater distances using the same volume of fuel, or in other words, with greater payload range ([0141), and results in decreased aromatic content which improves engine operability and lifetime and reduces soot emissions ([0142]), increased smoke point which is desirable because higher smoke point indicates a cleaner-burning fuel ([0144], and also decreased freezing point which is desirable because a lower freezing point enables a fuel to meet more stringent specifications (such as for AN-8) or to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments ([0145]).
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 Hoke in view of Cayre to have
claim 2: providing fuel to the combustor having an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume
claim 13: the fuel having an aromatic content of 5% or lower by volume
as taught by Bauldreay to have higher volumetric energy density while having decreased aromatic content and reduced soot emissions, increased smoke point and a lower freezing point to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments such as low temperatures at altitude, as well as the jet fuel blend taught by Bauldreay is at least partially derived from a renewable biomass feedstock comprising corn syrup ([0055] and Table 9).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, as best understood, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Bauldreay further teaches
claim 3: providing fuel to the combustor having an aromatic content of 1% or lower by volume (see 112(b): interpreted as instead of both the step recited in claim 1 and the step recited in claim 2: jet fuel SK1 in Table 11-1 has an aromatic content of 0% by volume which is 1% or lower by volume as claimed)
and
claim 14: the fuel having an aromatic content of 1% or lower by volume (see 112(b): interpreted as instead of both the fuel as recited in claim 12 and the fuel as recited in claim 13: jet fuel SK1 in Table 11-1 has an aromatic content of 0% by volume which is 1% or lower by volume as claimed).
Bauldreay teaches with reference to Figs. 1-4 and Table 11-1, increased SK1 cyclo-paraffinic kerosene content in the jet fuel blends results in increased volumetric energy density which is desirable because higher volumetric energy density results in aircraft flying greater distances using the same volume of fuel, or in other words, with greater payload range ([0141), and results in decreased aromatic content which improves engine operability and lifetime and reduces soot emissions ([0142]), increased smoke point which is desirable because higher smoke point indicates a cleaner-burning fuel ([0144], and also decreased freezing point which is desirable because a lower freezing point enables a fuel to meet more stringent specifications (such as for AN-8) or to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments ([0145]).
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 Hoke in view of Cayre to have
claim 3: providing fuel to the combustor having an aromatic content of 1% or lower by volume
claim 13: the fuel having an aromatic content of 1% or lower by volume
as taught by Bauldreay to have higher volumetric energy density while having decreased aromatic content and reduced soot emissions, increased smoke point and a lower freezing point to fly more direct routes through colder areas, and have wider applicability for cold environments such as low temperatures at altitude, as well as the SK1 jet fuel taught by Bauldreay is at least partially derived from a renewable biomass feedstock comprising corn syrup ([0055] and Table 9).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Hoke further teaches wherein a number of fuel spray nozzles is between 14 and 22 (there are 16 fuel spray nozzles 86 in Fig. 3, para. 43; 16 is between 14 and 22) and/or a number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size is 2 to 6.
Regarding claim 5, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Hoke further teaches wherein the subset of fuel spray nozzles comprises at least one half of a total number of fuel spray nozzles (there are 10 duplex nozzles 86D which is at least half of 16).
Regarding claim 6, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above in claim 5 but is silent as discussed so far wherein the subset of fuel spray nozzles comprises at least two thirds of the total number of fuel spray nozzles which is essentially a range of two thirds to 100% of the total number of fuel spray nozzles.
Hoke teaches 10 of 16 fuel spray nozzles are duplex nozzles to which fuel is biased which is 5/8 of the total number of fuel spray nozzles which is close to the claimed at least 2/3. Per MPEP 2144.05 I.: “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.").
In addition, since in the instant application specification, Applicant does not provide any advantage or unpredictable effect of the subset comprising at least two thirds of the total number of fuel spray nozzles versus the subset comprising at least one half of the total number of fuel spray nozzles, having the subset comprise slightly less than two thirds of the total number of fuel spray nozzles would predictably achieve the same benefit as having two thirds the total number.
Therefore, the claimed range of the subset of fuel spray nozzles comprising at least two thirds of the total number of fuel spray nozzles would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention over the invention of Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi.
Regarding claim 7, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Hoke further teaches wherein the arrangement of fuel spray nozzles comprises duplex nozzles (86D Fig. 3 para. 43) and single flow nozzles (86S Fig. 3 para. 43; 86S has a single secondary flow jet 102 in Fig. 5, not a primary flow jet 100 and secondary flow jet 102 like duplex nozzles 86D).
Regarding claim 8, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above in claim 7 and wherein the subset of fuel spray nozzles comprises the duplex nozzles (as cited in claim 1, subset of fuel spray nozzles comprises duplex nozzles 86D) and the remaining fuel spray nozzles comprise the single flow nozzles (fuel spray nozzles other than duplex nozzles 86D are single flow nozzles 86S in Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Hoke further teaches wherein the combustor comprises at least two ignitors (124 Fig. 3; 2 are shown in Fig. 3) and the subset of fuel spray nozzles comprises at least two groups of nozzles (group of 6-D and 7-D, group of 5-D and 4-D in Fig. 3), each group of nozzles adjacent one of the ignitors (each group is adjacent one of ignitors 124 in Fig. 3, also each ignitor 124 is adjacent each group since each ignitor is between the two groups).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above but does not explicitly teach wherein:
a) the fuel provided to the combustor has a calorific value of at least 43.5 MJ/kg; and/or
b) the gas turbine engine comprises a fuel-oil heat exchanger, and
claim 11: the method comprises transferring
claim 20: the controller is arranged to transfer
heat from oil to the fuel before the fuel enters the combustor so as to lower fuel viscosity to 0.58 mm2/s or lower on entry to the combustor at cruise conditions.
Bauldreay further teaches in Table 11-4, jet fuel blend C-6 has a calorific value of 44.1 MJ/kg which is at least 43.5 MJ/kg as claimed, and jet fuel blend C-6 comprises aromatics with an aromatic content of 1% by volume. As described in [0129] synthetic jet fuel component sourced from Pearl GTL plant in Qatar has 100.0 wt. % paraffin, i.e., alkane, content with iso-paraffin, i.e., iso-alkane, and n-paraffin, i.e., n-alkane, content of 96.3 wt. % is provided as GTL2 which is in jet fuel blends shown in Table 11-4. Petroleum-derived jet fuels such as Jet A inherently contain both paraffinic, i.e., alkanes, and aromatic hydrocarbons. In addition to jet fuel blend C-6 having a higher calorific value than jet fuel blend 3-6, jet fuel blend C-6 also has a higher smoke point than jet fuel blend 3-6.
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 Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi to have the fuel be jet fuel blend C-6 such that
a) the fuel provided to the combustor has a calorific value of at least 43.5 MJ/kg as taught by Bauldreay in order to have a fuel with increased calorific value with lower aromatic content by volume and a higher smoke point; and/or
b) the gas turbine engine comprises a fuel-oil heat exchanger, and
claim 11: the method comprises transferring
claim 20: the controller is arranged to transfer
heat from oil to the fuel before the fuel enters the combustor so as to lower fuel viscosity to 0.58 mm2/s or lower on entry to the combustor at cruise conditions
.
Regarding claim 16, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Hoke further teaches wherein the subset of fuel spray nozzles comprises at least one half of a total number of fuel spray nozzles (there are 10 duplex nozzles 86D which is at least half of 16).
Regarding claim 17, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above and Hoke further teaches wherein the arrangement of fuel spray nozzles comprises duplex nozzles (86D Fig. 3 para. 43) and single flow nozzles (86S Fig. 3 para. 43; 86S has a single secondary flow jet 102 in Fig. 5, not a primary flow jet 100 and secondary flow jet 102 like duplex nozzles 86D).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoke et al. 20130199200 in view of Cayre et al. FR 3032010A1, Bauldreay et al. 20180230393 and NPL 2012 Sadeghbeigi Fluid Catalytic Cracking Handbook as applied to, respectively, claims 9 and 18 above, and further in view of Venkataramani et al. 5257500.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far wherein the gas turbine engine comprises a plurality of ignitors disposed symmetrically about a circumference of the combustor.
Venkataramani teaches ignition of jet aircraft fuels at high altitudes using plasma jet igniters (col 1 lines 6-8) including during re-lighting the air fuel mixture in the combustor during flame-out conditions (col 3 lines 29-34). Venkataramani teaches a gas turbine engine (per col 2 lines 32-35: Fig. 1 is a combustor dome of a conventional jet engine) comprises a plurality of ignitors (as described in col 3 lines 6-8: although only one ignitor 12 is shown in Fig. 2, another ignitor may be provided diametrically across the combustor dome; as also described in col 3 lines 10-12: several ignitors may be mounted in place of conventional ignitors or in addition to conventional ignitors). Modifying the invention of Hoke in view of Cayre to have additional ignitors respectively positioned diametrically opposite each of the ignitors shown in Fig. 3 of Hoke as taught by Venkataramani results in a plurality of ignitors disposed symmetrically about a circumference of the combustor as claimed since each additional ignitor is 180 degrees apart from a respective ignitor shown in Fig. 3.
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 Hoke in view of Cayre, Bauldreay and Sadeghbeigi wherein the gas turbine engine comprises a plurality of ignitors disposed symmetrically about a circumference of the combustor as taught by Venkataramani to provide an ignition system which will reliably relight the jet engine combustor during flight (Venkataramani col 1 lines 17-22) as well as to provide ignitor redundancy for flight safety reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but are moot as the arguments are regarding the new limitations added to currently amended claims 1 and 12. Newly cited prior art Bauldreay et al. 20180230393 is relied on in the current 103 rejections of amended claims 1 and 12. Applicant does not argue the 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./ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights