DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/1/2026 has been entered.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-12, 14, & 16-18 are canceled by Applicant. Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13, 15, & 19-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 15, & 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “first fuel flow path upstream and downstream” (l. 11) is believed to be in error for - - first fuel flow path at a first location upstream of the first valve and at a second location downstream - -.
The recitation “a orifice” (l. 12) is believed to be in error for - - an orifice - -.
The recitation “to second valve” (l. 19) is believed to be in error for - - to the second valve - -.
Regarding Claim 13:
The recitation “valves” (last line) is believed to be in error for - - valve - -.
Regarding Claim 15:
The recitation “a firing apparatus” (last line) is believed to be in error for - - the firing apparatus - -.
Regarding Claim 19:
The recitation “branch at a point upstream and downstream of the first valve” (ll. 9-10) is believed to be in error for - - branch at a first location upstream of the first valve and at a second location downstream of the first valve - -.
Regarding Claim 20:
The recitation “branch at a point upstream and downstream of the first valve” (ll. 7-8) is believed to be in error for - - branch at a first location upstream of the first valve and at a second location downstream of the first valve - -.
The recitation “firs” (l. 10) is believed to be in error for - - first - -.
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(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.
Claims 4-7, 10, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Dependent Claims 4-7 & 10, the claims depend from canceled claim 2 and are therefore incomplete. The scope of these claims cannot be determined.
Regarding Independent Claim 20, the recitation “operating the first valve and the second valve in a firs operating state to cause fuel gas flow to bypass the first valve through the second branch to the nozzle manifold of the gas turbine; and operating the first valve and the second valve in a second operating state to cause fuel gas flow through the first branch and the second branch to the nozzle manifold during start-up, operation, and shutdown conditions of the gas turbine” (last 5 lines) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear when, if ever, operating in the first operating state or the second operating state is carried out. The first operating state is not limited to any particular operating conditions, which would appear to require this step to actually be carried out and, since the second operating state is tied to particular operating conditions, exclude the second step outside of those particular operating conditions; however, the second operating state appears to cover all possible operating conditions of the gas turbine (start-up, operation, and shutdown) which would therefore exclude any use of the first operating state. Thus, both operating steps appear to exclude the other and it is unclear which of the operating steps, and the corresponding first or second operating states, is required in the claim.
Claims 4-7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
Regarding Dependent Claims 4-7 & 10, the claims depend from claim 2, which is canceled, and thus these claims both fail to further limit any subject matter of any claim and fail to include any limitations from any parent claim.
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
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.
Claims 1, 13, 15, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ethier 20150322857 in view of Lawson 20110036092.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ethier teaches a firing apparatus (Figs. 1, 3) to control flow of fuel gas to a nozzle of a burner or a nozzle manifold for the firing of a gas turbine (fuel nozzle of combustor in which 319 is located), the firing apparatus comprising:
an inlet (first end of dashed line at 318 connected to fuel tank) connectable to a fuel gas source;
an outlet (at connection to combustor) for supplying a controlled amount of fuel gas to the nozzle or the nozzle manifold;
a shutoff valve (323) for selectively allowing fuel gas flow from the fuel source to the outlet;
a fuel line (fuel line between 323 and the three branches in Fig. 3) having a first end (first end at 323) connected to the shutoff valve;
a first fuel flow path coupled to a second end of the fuel line and to the outlet (extending from second end of the fuel line, the second end being at the branching point of the three branches in Fig. 3, to the outlet at the combustor), the first fuel flow path comprising a first valve (327) and a second valve (valve indicated at 322 in Fig. 1) disposed in series (327 and valve at 322 are in series);
a second flow path coupled to the first fuel flow path upstream and downstream of the first valve, the second fuel flow path comprising a orifice (flow path with orifice 324 is connected upstream and downstream of 327),
wherein the second fuel flow path has a flow rate that is less than the flow rate of the first fuel flow path (second fuel flow path with orifice 324 has flow rate of 0.25 g/s whereas first fuel flow path with valve 327 has flow rate of 5 g/s; para. [0084]), and
wherein the first valve and the second valve are configured to assume:
a first operating state in which fuel gas flows through the second fuel flow path to second valve and then to the nozzle or to the nozzle manifold of the gas turbine (327 can be closed and then fuel will be routed through the second fuel flow path to the valve at 322); and
a second operating state in which fuel gas flows through the first valve and the second valve and then to the nozzle or to the nozzle manifold of the gas turbine over start-up, operation, and shutdown conditions (327 can be opened and then fuel will flow through 327 and 322 and then to the combustor over any desired operations).
Ethier fails to teach the shutoff valves arranged to form a double block and bleed system.
Lawson teaches a system with a flow path for receiving fuel gas (126 receives fuel gas 122), the flow path comprising a pair of shutoff valves (VS4-11, VSR-11) and a vent valve coupled between the pair of shutoff valves (vent valve VA13-20 between VS4-11, VSR-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ethier’s system to include shutoff valves arranged to form a double block and bleed system, as taught by Lawson, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Ethier’s shutoff valve versus the claimed shutoff valves arranged to form a double block and bleed system, as taught by Lawson), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (Ethier’s arrangement of valves and Lawson’s arrangement of valves were both known to be useful for providing shutoff functions in fuel supplies for gas turbine engines), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Ethier’s valve arrangement or Lawson’s valve arrangement could have been used to predictably provide valves for stopping fuel flow). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Ethier in view of Lawson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Ethier in view of Lawson teaches the shutoff valves comprise: a first shutoff valve fluidly connected to the inlet (the replacement of Ethier’s valve with the double block and bleed system includes Lawson’s first shutoff valve which would be fluidly connected to the inlet); a second shutoff valve fluidly connected between the first shutoff valve and the first valve (the replacement of Ethier’s valve with the double block and bleed system includes Lawson’s second shutoff valve which would be fluidly connected between the first shutoff valve and the first valve); and wherein a vent valve is coupled between the first shutoff valve and the second shutoff valves (the replacement of Ethier’s valve with the double block and bleed system includes Lawson’s vent valve coupled between the first shutoff valve and the second shutoff valve).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Ethier in view of Lawson teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Ethier further teaches a gas turbine (Fig. 1), comprising: a burner for burning fuel (combustor in which 319 is positioned); a nozzle manifold having one or more nozzles (since the claimed manifold only requires one nozzle, this could simply be the portion of the fuel line between the valve at 322 and the nozzle at the combustor – and the combustor would necessarily include a nozzle, i.e. any outlet structure for injecting fuel into the combustor) for injecting fuel into the burner; and a firing apparatus according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Ethier teaches a system (Figs. 1 & 3), comprising:
a gas turbine (Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle manifold (multiple nozzles are not recited, thus the manifold can simply be a portion of a supply line to the nozzle itself, which is between valve at 322 and the combustor in which 319 is positioned); and
a firing apparatus coupled to the nozzle manifold, the firing apparatus comprising:
a first flow path for receiving fuel gas (from fuel tank to 323), the first flow path comprising a shutoff valve (323); and
a second flow path interposed between the first flow path and the nozzle manifold and arranged to receive fuel gas flow downstream of the shutoff valve (from 323 to 322), the second flow path comprising a first branch with a first valve and a second valve (with valve 327 and the valve at 322) and a second branch with a fixed orifice (branch with orifice 324), the second branch coupled to the first branch at a point upstream and downstream of the first valve (second branch coupled to the first branch at points upstream and downstream of 327),
wherein operation of the firing apparatus causes the first valve and the second valve to assume:
a first operating state in which fuel gas flows through the second branch into the second valve and then to the nozzle manifold of the gas turbine (327 can be closed and fuel will then flow through the second branch into the valve at 322 and then to the nozzle manifold discussed above), or
a second operating state in which fuel gas flows through the first branch and the second branch and then to the nozzle manifold over start-up, operation, and shutdown conditions of the gas turbine (327 can be opened and fuel will then flow through the first branch and the second branch and then to the nozzle manifold discussed above over any desired operation).
Ethier fails to teach a pair of shutoff valves and a vent valve coupled between the pair of shutoff valves.
Lawson teaches a system with a flow path for receiving fuel gas (126 receives fuel gas 122), the flow path comprising a pair of shutoff valves (VS4-11, VSR-11) and a vent valve coupled between the pair of shutoff valves (vent valve VA13-20 between VS4-11, VSR-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ethier’s system to include a pair of shutoff valves and a vent valve coupled between the pair of shutoff valves, as taught by Lawson, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Ethier’s shutoff valve versus the claimed pair of shutoff valves and a vent valve coupled between the pair of shutoff valves, as taught by Lawson), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (Ethier’s arrangement of valves and Lawson’s arrangement of valves were both known to be useful for providing shutoff functions in fuel supplies for gas turbine engines), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Ethier’s valve arrangement or Lawson’s valve arrangement could have been used to predictably provide valves for stopping fuel flow). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Regarding Independent Claim 20, Ethier teaches a method (para. [0084]), comprising:
on a gas turbine (Figs. 1, 3) comprising a nozzle manifold (multiple nozzles are not recited, thus the manifold can simply be a portion of a supply line to the nozzle itself, which is between valve at 322 and the combustor in which 319 is positioned),
regulating a flow of fuel gas through a first flow path using a shutoff valve (323 regulates gaseous fuel; paras. [0084] & [0093]);
receiving the flow of fuel gas at a second flow path downstream of the pair of shutoff valves (flow path from 323 to 322), the second flow path comprising a first branch comprising a first valve and a second valve (327 and valve at 322) and a second branch comprising a fixed orifice (branch with orifice 324), the second branch coupled to the first branch at a point upstream and downstream of the first valve (second branch coupled to the first branch at points upstream and downstream of 327); and
regulating a flow of fuel gas through the second flow path (as follows) by:
operating the first valve and the second valve in a firs operating state to cause fuel gas flow to bypass the first valve through the second branch to the nozzle manifold of the gas turbine (initially, fuel passes through 324 to the nozzle manifold discussed above; para. [0084]);
operating the first valve and the second valve in a second operating state to cause fuel gas flow through the first branch and the second branch to the nozzle manifold during start-up, operation, and shutdown conditions of the gas turbine (during operation, 327 and the valve at 322 are opened to cause fuel to flow through 324 and 327/322; para. [0084]).
Ethier fails to teach a pair of shutoff valves.
Lawson teaches a system with a flow path for receiving fuel gas (126 receives fuel gas 122), the flow path comprising a pair of shutoff valves (VS4-11, VSR-11) and a vent valve coupled between the pair of shutoff valves (vent valve VA13-20 between VS4-11, VSR-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ethier’s system to include a pair of shutoff valves, as taught by Lawson, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Ethier’s shutoff valve versus the claimed pair of shutoff valves, as taught by Lawson), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (Ethier’s arrangement of valves and Lawson’s arrangement of valves were both known to be useful for providing shutoff functions in fuel supplies for gas turbine engines), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Ethier’s valve arrangement or Lawson’s valve arrangement could have been used to predictably provide valves for stopping fuel flow). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741