DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed on March 06, 2026. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-16, 18-23 are pending.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 1-2, 5-7, 9-16, 18-23 is 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.
As to Claim 1, “the centerline” at line 18 renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if this recitation of the centerline refers to: (i) the aforementioned ‘engine centerline’ (lines 2-3); or (ii) the aforementioned ‘dome centerline’ (line 11).
As to Claim 1, “the centerline” at line 19 renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if this recitation of the centerline refers to: (i) the aforementioned ‘engine centerline’ (lines 2-3); or (ii) the aforementioned ‘dome centerline’ (line 11).
Claims 2, 5-7, 9-16, 18-23 depend from indefinite claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reason.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-5623827-A
“MONTY”
US-5331805-A
“MYERS”
US-20190093892-A1
“RIMMER”
US-20180058696-A1
“DANIS”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MONTY.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1254
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, MONTY teaches a gas turbine engine (claim 1, 1:51-56, 3:4-6, 3:23-26) comprising:
a compressor section [annotated in Image 1] and a combustion section [annotated in Image 1] in serial flow arrangement along an engine centerline [longitudinal engine centerline, annotated “ROTATIONAL AXIS” in Image 1], the combustion section comprising:
a combustor liner 16, 18;
a dome wall [36, 40] coupled to the combustor liner (Fig. 2), and a dome inlet located in the dome wall (opening through the dome wall through which 25 flows);
a fuel injector [26, 28, 32] fluidly coupled to the dome inlet (Fig. 2);
a combustion chamber 14 fluidly coupled to the fuel injector and defined at least in part by the combustor liner and the dome wall (3:22-42); and
a set of discrete dilution openings [openings 54, 56, 58] located in the dome wall and fluidly coupled to the combustion chamber (Figs. 2, 5), the set of discrete dilution openings arranged about a dome centerline [annotated “axial centerline” in Image 2 or annotated “circumferential centerline” in Image 2], wherein the set of discrete dilution openings includes at least a first opening [opening annotated “A1” in Image 2] spaced from the dome centerline a first radial distance (see Image 2, Figure 5; distance along the “radial direction” shown in Image 2.5) in a radial direction [along a radius of the annulus defined dome 20] (See Fig. 5; radial direction is annotated with respect to Figure 5 in Image 2.5 below) and a second opening [opening annotated “B2” in Image 2] spaced from the dome centerline a second radial distance in the radial direction (see Image 2, Figure 5; distance along the “radial direction” shown in Image 2.5) that is different from the first radial distance (see Image 2, Figure 5; “A1” is spaced further from the dome centerline than “B2” along the radial direction along a radius of the annulus defined dome 20); and
a deflector [annotated in Image 2] extending axially away from the dome wall (Image 2 / Figure 2), wherein the deflector is disposed between the first opening and the second opening in the radial direction (See Image 2), the second opening is disposed between the centerline (engine centerline; located at the center of the circle in Image 2.5) and the first opening in the radial direction (see Image 2.5 below and Image 2 above; B2 is between engine centerline and first opening A1), and the second opening is disposed between the deflector and the centerline (engine centerline) in the radial direction (See Images 1, 2, 2.5).
PNG
media_image3.png
2796
2295
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the set of discrete dilution openings is arranged in a circumferential array about the dome inlet (see openings 54, Figure 5).
Re Claim 5, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the dome wall defines corners [annotated “CORNER” in Image 2, Figure 5] and at least one opening of the set of discrete dilution openings [one of openings annotated “C1”, “C2”, “C3”, “C4” in Image 2] are included in at least one of the corners (See Image 2 / Figure 5).
Re Claim 6, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 5, wherein a dilution opening of the set of discrete dilution openings is located in each of the corners [openings “C1”, “C2”, “C3”, “C4” in Image 2].
Re Claim 7, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the set of discrete dilution openings are arranged annularly about the dome inlet (See Figures 2 & 5).
Re Claim 9, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 8, wherein the first opening (annotated “A1” in Image 2) and the second opening (annotated “B2” in Image 2) are slotted openings (openings are long and narrow having a circular shape; see Figs. 2, 5).
Re Claim 10, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the slotted openings are at least one of a racetrack shape, a circular shape, or an elliptical shape (openings are long and narrow having a circular shape; see Figs. 2, 5).
Re Claim 11, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the slotted openings are angled with respect to the radial direction (Figure 2).
Re Claim 12, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the slotted openings are at least one of annularly or radially spaced about the dome inlet (see Figures 2 & 5 and Image 2).
Re Claim 13, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein a dilution opening of the set of discrete dilution openings extends between a dilution inlet and a dilution outlet at the dome wall (Figs. 2, 5).
Re Claim 15, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the dome inlet defines the dome centerline [annotated “axial centerline” in Image 2] and the set of discrete dilution openings defines a dilution centerline [annotated “dilution centerline” in Image 2, centerline of opening 54 annotated “B2”].
Re Claim 16, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 15, wherein the dilution centerline [annotated “dilution centerline” in Image 2] is a first centerline angled toward a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis of the combustor) and intersecting with the dome centerline [annotated “axial centerline “ in Image 2] to define a dilution angle [annotated in Image 2].
Re Claim 18, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein multiple dome walls are located about the engine centerline (see Figure 5, multiple dome walls are arranged circumferentially about the engine centerline).
Re Claim 19, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the fuel injector comprises a flare cone 32, which defines the dome centerline (dome centerline extends through the center of the flare cone).
Re Claim 21, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the deflector extends axially downstream of the dome wall a first distance (Figure 2, 5; Image 2).
Re Claim 22, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 21, wherein the deflector is a first axial deflector [annotated in Image 3 below] and the gas turbine engine further comprises a second axial deflector [annotated in Image 3] (deflector providing a radially angled flowpath for 56, 58) extending axially downstream of the dome wall a second distance [annotated “SECOND DISTANCE” in Image 3] different than the first distance (second distance is less than the first distance, as the first deflector extends further downstream).
PNG
media_image4.png
1093
1033
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 23, MONTY teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 22, wherein a straight-line [annotated in Image 3] connecting distal ends of the first axial deflector and the second axial deflector intersects the combustor liner to form an obtuse angle [annotated “OBTUSE ANGLE” in Image 3].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MYERS in view of RIMMER.
PNG
media_image5.png
1493
1078
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, MYERS teaches a turbine engine (1:18-21) comprising:
a compressor section and a combustion section in serial flow arrangement (1:31-67, 2:51-63) along an engine centerline 11/11a, the combustion section comprising:
a combustor liner 20, 22;
a dome wall 28 coupled to the combustor liner, and a dome inlet located in the dome wall (opening in which assembly 30/130, 52 is received);
a fuel injector 52 fluidly coupled to the dome inlet (3:7-40);
a combustion chamber 19 fluidly coupled to the fuel injector and defined at least in part by the combustor liner and the dome wall; and
a set of discrete dilution openings [32, 34] located in the dome wall and fluidly coupled to the combustion chamber (Fig. 5), the set of discrete dilution openings arranged about a dome centerline (axial centerline defined by dome inlet, about which 30/130 are centered; see Fig. 2 or Fig. 3), wherein the set of discrete dilution openings includes at least a first opening 32 spaced from the dome centerline a first radial distance [annotated “shorter distance to centerline” in Image 4 Figs. 2, 3, and 5] in a radial direction (radial with respect to annulus formed by annular combustor, see e.g., direction along any of radial lines 56 Figure 5) and a second opening 34 the dome centerline a second radial distance [distance in the radial direction equal to the “shorter distance to centerline replicated” plus the “difference amount” in Image 4] in the radial direction that is different from the first radial distance (first radial distance is shown as being smaller than the second radial distance; See Image 4 and NOTE below), the second opening is disposed between the centerline (engine centerline) and the first opening in the radial direction (Figs. 2-4), and the second opening is disposed between the injector center and the centerline (engine centerline) in the radial direction (see Figs. 2-4) However, MYERS fails to teach a deflector extending axially away from the dome wall.
RIMMER teaches a deflector 64 extending axially away from a dome wall, which defines the dome centerline (at a geometric center thereof) (Figs. 2-3), wherein the deflector is disposed between and separates a first opening 76 from a second opening 80 in the radial direction to separate the first opening from the second opening along the radial direction (Figures 3-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fuel injector such that it includes a deflector extending axially away from the dome wall, wherein the deflector is disposed between the first opening and the second opening in the radial direction to separate the first opening from the second opening along the radial direction, such that the second opening is disposed between the centerline (engine centerline) and the first opening in the radial direction, and the second opening is thereby disposed between the deflector and the centerline (engine centerline) in the radial direction (deflector located at geometric center of the injector), in order to seal the fuel nozzle assembly (30/130 of MYERS) with respect to the end wall (28 of MYERS) (RIMMER ¶0050).
Note in MYERS the radial distance between first opening 32 and the centerline is shown as a distance smaller than the radial distance between second opening 34 and the centerline, specifically it is shown as smaller by the distance annotated “difference amount” in Image 4. This is shown in each of Figures 2, 3 and 5. In Image 4, the first radial distance is annotated “shorter distance to centerline” (in each of Figures 2, 3 and 5). This first radial distance was duplicated exactly in size and dragged such that it is aligned with the second opening 34 for each of the Figures in Image 4 (annotated “shorter distance to centerline replicated”). In each instance, the second radial difference is shown to be larger than the first radial difference by the radial distance of the “difference amount” annotated in Image 4. Further, it is evident from the cross hatching of the section views that the second radial distance is larger (see also below). In the instant case, MYERS consistently shows this difference in radial distance in each Figure, even in the cross-sectional and elevation views (see MYERS 2:33-53 and Figures 2, 3, 5). The Figures, when coupled with the description at 2:30-43 and the teachings that said openings 32, 24 being offset relative to one another and radial line 56 as described at 4:1-48 results in stretched swirling and increased residence time, would have reasonably taught one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first radial distance smaller than the second radial distance as shown to achieve such benefits. The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). It is also noted that openings 32, 34 can have equal arcs (of circles of equal radius) while being at different radial distances from the centerline (at delivery nozzle 52 at of the fuel nozzle) as shown in the Figures.
PNG
media_image6.png
720
1156
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second radial distance in the radial direction that is different from the first radial distance as shown in Figure 3 for the reasons discussed above, namely to provide a configuration that results in stretched swirling and increased residence time (4:1-48).
Re Claim 2, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the set of discrete dilution openings is arranged in a circumferential array about the dome inlet (MYERS Fig. 5).
Re Claim 7, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the set of discrete dilution openings are arranged annularly about the dome inlet (MYERS Fig. 5).
Re Claim 9, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 8, wherein the first opening and the second opening are slotted openings (MYERS Fig. 5).
Re Claim 11, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the slotted openings are angled with respect to a radial direction (MYERS Figs. 5a, 5b; see also Fig. 5).
Re Claim 12, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 9, wherein the slotted openings are at least one of annularly or radially spaced about the dome inlet (MYERS Fig. 5).
Re Claim 13, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein a dilution opening of the set of discrete dilution openings extends between a dilution inlet (inlet to 32/34) and a dilution outlet (outlet to 32/34) at the dome wall (MYERS Figs. 2, 3, 5a, 5b).
Re Claim 14, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 13, further comprising at least one vane 36, 38 disposed within the set of discrete dilution openings between the dilution inlet and the dilution outlet (Figs. 2, 3, 5a, 5b).
Re Claim 15, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the dome inlet defines the dome centerline (inlet is geometrically centered at the centerline as discussed in claim 1) and the set of discrete dilution openings defines a dilution centerline (centerline of one or more of 32, 34).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MYERS in view of RIMMER as applied above, further in view of DANIS.
Re Claims 19-20, MYERS in view of RIMMER teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1. MYERS further teaches wherein the engine centerline is parallel to the dome centerline (MYERS Figure 2, and Figures 4-5; see also claim 1 above). However, MYERS in view of RIMMER fails to teach the fuel injector comprises a flare cone, which defines the dome centerline.
DANIS teaches a fuel injector comprising a flare cone 86, which defines a dome centerline 74 (sidewall forms geometric center at dome/injector centerline 74; Figs. 5-6, ¶0031). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fuel injector such that it comprises a flare cone, which defines the dome centerline, in order to facilitate one or more of mixing, improved combustion dynamics and/or service life (DANIS ¶¶0031, 0033).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection but necessitated the new ground of rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art rejections are not persuasive with respect to the prior art as now applied, and as set forth fully above. In each rejection the deflector is disposed between the first opening and the second opening in the radial direction, the second opening is disposed between the centerline (engine centerline) and the first opening in the radial direction, and the second opening is disposed between the deflector and the centerline (engine centerline) in the radial direction as set forth fully in the rejections above.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
March 16, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741