FINAL REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 21 and 37 recite “a ratio of mass flow rate through the bypass duct to mass flow rate through the engine core is at least 6.66”. The recited ranges include a lower bound, i.e. 0.0, but do not recite upper bounds defined for these ranges. The specification fails to provide explanations of how these ranges would be achieved, thus not enabling one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261,270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands', 858 F.2d 731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Determining enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The determination that "undue experimentation" would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion that may be reached by weighing some or all of the following non-exhaustive list of factual considerations: (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Wands', 858 F.2d at 737.
In the instant application, the breadth of the claims encompasses an infinite scope of operating ranges and the Applicant has provided no direction to achieve a large portion of the claimed scope. For example, one of ordinary skill would not be able to configure a gas turbine engine with bypass ratio approaching an infinite value. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have to greatly experiment with the gas turbine engine to achieve a large amount of the claimed scope. Even taking the level of ordinary skill and the predictability of the art in a light most favorable to the Applicant, the sheer breadth of the claims coupled with the lack of direction and working examples throughout the scope amounts to undue experimentation. Furthermore, the courts have held that “[t]he specification must contain sufficient disclosure to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., 103 U.S.P.Q. 2d. 1769, 1772 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Like MagSil, the instant application is found to not be enabled because the " [the claims] broad scope is not reasonably supported by the scope of enablement in the specification. Id. at 1774. For these reasons, the scope of the claims are not enabled.
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.
Claims 22-36, and 38-39 which depends on claims 21 and 37 and do not provide any upper bound are also rejected.
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.
Claims 21-32, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsopp (US 2011/0126543) in view of Schripp (“aircraft engine particulate matter emissions from sustainable aviation fuels: Results from ground-based measurements during NASA/DLR campaign ECLIF2/ND-MAX”), and further in view of Dalton (Ultra High Bypass Ratio Low Noise Engine Study”, NASA/CR-2003-212523, 2003).
Regarding Claims 21-29, and 30-32: Kirsopp discloses a gas turbine engine (2; Fig. 1) for an aircraft [0003], comprising: a bypass duct (see [0025] wherein the engine has a bypass and thus a bypass duct); and an engine core (4-16; Fig. 1) with a rich burn, quick quench, lean burn (RQL) (RQL; [0005])combustor (8; Fig. 2) having a number of fuel spray nozzles in the a range of 14-22 ([0028]) or a number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size in the a range 2 to 6, an ignitor (see [00006] wherein mixture is ignited, therfor ignitor is present), a rich zone in which the fuel spray nozzles are configured to inject a rich air-fuel mixture to burn at a fuel/air ratio higher than stoichiometric (forward portion, see [00005]),a quick quench zone, and primary ports (78; Fig. 2) configured to introduce air to quench combustion to a fuel/air ratio lower than stoichiometric in the quick quench zone (see [0005]); an EImaxTO,FF is the an nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100%(for Claims 21-23), 85% (for Claims 24-26), 30%(for Claims 27-29), 7% (for Claims 30-31) available thrust for the given operating conditions (the gas turbine provides such thrust levels) when the fuel provided to the fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (fuel delivered in the turbine); WfmaxTO is the a mass flow rate of the fuel (a mass flow rate is necessary present) provided to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 100%(for Claims 21-23), 85% (for Claims 24-26), 30%(for Claims 27-29), 7% (for Claims 30-31) available thrust for the given operating conditions, a bypass ratio defined as a ratio of mass flow rate through the bypass duct to mass flow rate through the engine core is at least a predetermined value at cruise conditions (since bypass is present see [0025] a bypass ratio exists at any condition and especially at cruise).
Kirsopp is silent regarding the gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising the SAF to the fuel spray nozzles, and an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as: ElmaxTO,SAF/ElmaxTO,FF* Wf,maxTO being less than 2, less than 1.23, and greater than 0.284 (for Claims 21-23); ElclimbTO,SAF/ElclaimbTO,FF* Wf,climbTO being less than 2, less than 1.01, and greater than 0.175 (for Claims 24-26); ElapproachTO,SAF/ElapproachTO,FF* Wf, approachTO being less than 0.4, less than 0.334, and greater than 0.0204 (for Claims 27-29); ElidleTO,SAF/ElidleTO,FF* Wf, idleTO being less than 0.2, less than 0.119, and greater than 0.00494 (for Claims 30-31).
However, Schripp teaches a gas turbine engine combustor (A320-232 V2527-A5 engines, L. 149-151) with fuel comprising SAF (see Table 1) and having an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as: ElmaxTO,SAF/ElmaxTO,FF* Wf,maxTO being less than 2, less than 1.23, and greater than 0.284 (for Claims 21-23) (see Fig. 2 left figure last column result from the right, e.g. ratio is 0.7 Kg/s for SAJF3); ElclimbTO,SAF/ElclaimbTO,FF* Wf,climbTO being less than 2, less than 1.01, and greater than 0.175 (for Claims 24-26) (see Fig. 2 left figure second last column result from the right e.g. ratio is 0.6Kg/s for SAJF3); ElapproachTO,SAF/ElapproachTO,FF* Wf, approachTO being less than 0.4, less than 0.334, and greater than 0.0204 (for Claims 27-29) (see Fig. 2 left figure second column result from the left; e.g. ratio is 0.1 Kg/s for SAJF3); ElidleTO,SAF/ElidleTO,FF* Wf, idleTO being less than 0.2, less than 0.119, and greater than 0.00494 (for Claims 30-31) (see Fig. 2 left figure first column result from the left e.g. ratio is 0.05 Kg/s for SAJF3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine of Kirsopp to to provide fuel comprising the SAF to the fuel spray nozzles, and an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as: ElmaxTO,SAF/ElmaxTO,FF* Wf,maxTO being less than 2, less than 1.23, and greater than 0.284 (for Claims 21-23); ElclimbTO,SAF/ElclaimbTO,FF* Wf,climbTO being less than 2, less than 1.01, and greater than 0.175 (for Claims 24-26); ElapproachTO,SAF/ElapproachTO,FF* Wf, approachTO being less than 0.4, less than 0.334, and greater than 0.0204 (for Claims 27-29); ElidleTO,SAF/ElidleTO,FF* Wf, idleTO being less than 0.2, less than 0.119, and greater than 0.00494 (for Claims 30-31), as taught by Schripp. Doing so would enable to non-volatile particulate matter emissions, and thus reduce contrail concentration and lifetime to mitigate climate impacts, as recognized by Schripp (see L. 97-100).
Kirsopp is silent regarding the predetermined value being at least 6. 66.
However, Dalton teaches a gas turbine engine (“baseline engine” P. 5) with a bypass ration of at least 6. 66 at cruise condition (see P. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kirsopp to have the predetermined value being at least 6. 66, as taught by Dalton. Doing so would enable to provide further thrust.
Regarding Claim 35: Kirsopp in view of Schripp and Dalton teaches all the limitations of Claim 21, as stated above, and Schripp further teaches the fuel provided to the fuel nozzles comprises a percentage of SAF (see Table 1). Kirsopp in view of Schripp does not explicitly teach that the percentage is between 50 and 100.
Schripp teaches that increasing the amount of SAF in fuel will decrease the non-volatile particle emisssions (Figure 2 on L. 281). Therefore, the percentage of SAF used in the fuel is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the SAF concentration fuel in the fuel reduce the non-volatile particle emissions. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of SAF used in the fuel, were disclosed in the prior art by Schripp, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use between 50 and 100 percent SAF fuel in the engine of Zupanc in view of Schripp in order to further reduce non-volatile particle emissions. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 36: Kirsopp in view of Schripp and Dalton teaches method of operating the gas turbine engine of claim 21 (the gas turbine taught by Kirsopp in view of Schripp teaches also it method of operation, see rejection of claim 21), the method comprising providing fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel to the fuel spray nozzles (see Table 1).
Regarding Claims 38-40: Kirsopp discloses a method (the disclosure of the apparatus discloses its method of operating) of operating a gas turbine engine (2; Fig. 1) for an aircraft [0003], comprising: a bypass duct (see [0025] wherein the engine has a bypass and thus a bypass duct); and an engine core (4-16; Fig. 1) with a rich burn, quick quench, lean burn (RQL) (RQL; [0005])combustor (8; Fig. 2) having a number of fuel spray nozzles in the a range of 14-22 ([0028]) or a number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size in the a range 2 to 6, an ignitor (see [00006] wherein mixture is ignited, therfor ignitor is present), a rich zone in which the fuel spray nozzles are configured to inject a rich air-fuel mixture to burn at a fuel/air ratio higher than stoichiometric (forward portion, see [00005]),a quick quench zone, and primary ports (78; Fig. 2) configured to introduce air to quench combustion to a fuel/air ratio lower than stoichiometric in the quick quench zone (see [0005]); an EImaxTO,FF is the a nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100%(for Claim 37), 85% (for Claim 38), 30% (for Claim 39), 7% (for Claim 40) available thrust for the given operating conditions (the gas turbine provides such thrust levels) when the fuel provided to the fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (fuel delivered in the turbine); WfmaxTO is the a mass flow rate of the fuel (a mass flow rate is necessary present) provided to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 100%(for Claim 37), 85% (for Claim 38), 30%(for Claim 39), 7% (for Claim 40) available thrust for the given operating conditions a bypass ratio defined as a ratio of mass flow rate through the bypass duct to mass flow rate through the engine core is at least a predetermined value at cruise conditions (since bypass is present see [0025] a bypass ratio exists at any condition and especially at cruise).
Kirsopp is silent regarding providing fuel comprising the SAF to the fuel spray nozzles, and an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as: ElmaxTO,SAF/ElmaxTO,FF* Wf,maxTO being less than 2 (for Claim 37); ElclimbTO,SAF/ElclaimbTO,FF* Wf,climbTO being less than 2 (for Claim 38); ElapproachTO,SAF/ElapproachTO,FF* Wf, approachTO being less than 0.4 (for Claim 39); ElidleTO,SAF/ElidleTO,FF* Wf, idleTO being less than 0.2 (for Claims 40).
However, Schripp teaches a gas turbine engine combustor (A320-232 V2527-A5 engines, L. 149-151) with fuel comprising SAF (see Table 1) and having an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as: ElmaxTO,SAF/ElmaxTO,FF* Wf,maxTO being less than 2 (for Claim 37) (see Fig. 2 left figure last column result from the right, e.g. ratio is 0.7 Kg/s for SAJF3); ElclimbTO,SAF/ElclaimbTO,FF* Wf,climbTO being less than 2 (for Claim 38) (see Fig. 2 left figure second last column result from the right e.g. ratio is 0.6Kg/s for SAJF3); ElapproachTO,SAF/ElapproachTO,FF* Wf, approachTO being less than 0.4 (for Claim 39) (see Fig. 2 left figure second column result from the left; e.g. ratio is 0.1 Kg/s for SAJF3); ElidleTO,SAF/ElidleTO,FF* Wf, idleTO being less than 0.2, (for Claim 40) (see Fig. 2 left figure first column result from the left e.g. ratio is 0.05 Kg/s for SAJF3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine of Kirsopp to to provide fuel comprising the SAF to the fuel spray nozzles, and an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as: ElmaxTO,SAF/ElmaxTO,FF* Wf,maxTO being less than 2, less than 1.23, and greater than 0.284 (for Claims 21-23); ElclimbTO,SAF/ElclaimbTO,FF* Wf,climbTO being less than 2, less than 1.01, and greater than 0.175 (for Claims 24-26); ElapproachTO,SAF/ElapproachTO,FF* Wf, approachTO being less than 0.4, less than 0.334, and greater than 0.0204 (for Claims 27-29); ElidleTO,SAF/ElidleTO,FF* Wf, idleTO being less than 0.2, less than 0.119, and greater than 0.00494 (for Claims 30-31), as taught by Schripp. Doing so would enable to non-volatile particulate matter emissions, and thus reduce contrail concentration and lifetime to mitigate climate impacts, as recognized by Schripp (see L. 97-100).
Kirsopp is silent regarding the predetermined value being at least 6. 66.
However, Dalton teaches a gas turbine engine (“baseline engine” P. 5) with a bypass ration of at least 6. 66 at cruise condition (see P. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kirsopp to have the predetermined value being at least 6. 66, as taught by Dalton. Doing so would enable to provide further thrust.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsopp (US 2011/0126543) in view of Schripp (“aircraft engine particulate matter emissions from sustainable aviation fuels: Results from ground-based measurements during NASA/DLR campaign ECLIF2/ND-MAX”), Dalton (Ultra High Bypass Ratio Low Noise Engine Study”, NASA/CR-2003-212523, 2003), and further in view of Hoke (US 2013/0125556).
Regarding Claim 33: Kirsopp in view of Schripp and Dalton teaches all the limitations of Claim 21, as stated above, but is silent regarding the fuel spray nozzles comprises one or more duplex fuel spray nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles.
However, Hoke teaches discloses a gas turbine engine (20; Fig. 1) for an aircraft (“aircraft” [0002]), comprising: a rich burn (see annotated figure ‘556), quick quench (see annotated figure ‘556), lean burn (see annotated figure ‘556) (RQL) combustor (26; Fig. 1) having a number of fuel spray nozzles (86; Figs. 2-4) wherein the fuel spray nozzles comprises one or more duplex nozzles (7-D…4-D, 12-D…15-D; Fig. 3) and one or more single flow nozzles (1-S…3-S, 11-S…8-S; Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the combustor, e.g. ignitor, nozzles, of Kirsopp to have the fuel spray nozzles comprises one or more duplex fuel spray nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles, as taught by Hoke. Doing so would enable to control noise by forming a plurality of local circumferential zones with different fuel-air ratios within the combustor, as recognized by Hoke ([0005])
PNG
media_image1.png
640
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 34: Kirsopp in view of Schripp, Dalton, and Hoke teaches all the limitations of Claim 33, as stated above, and Hoke further teaches one or more ignitors (124; Fig. 3) and the, or each, ignitor is arranged adjacent to one or more of the duplex fuel spray nozzles (see 5-D, 6-D; Fig. 3); and/or wherein the number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size is in the range 2.5 to 4.5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been considered but are not convincing for the following reasons:
Applicant’s representative asserts that the combination of Kirsopp and Scrhripp is not appropriate. More precisely, Applicant’s representative asserts that since the combustor type and bypass ratio between Kirsopp and Schripp are different, the values of nvPM emissions taught by Scripp cannot be assumed for Kirsopp.
However, the previous Office Action does not imply/or evidence that the system of Kirsopp will necessarily produce nvPM emissions taught by Scripp, but rather that the system of Kirsopp can be modified to obtained the nvPM emissions taught by Scripp. For example, it is well known that the modification of several elements of a gas turbine engine can affect the nvPM emissions, such that changing/modifying the fuel properties, e.g. composition, temperature, viscosity; changing/modifying elements of the core engine, e.g. number of stages, fan gear ratio, fuel nozzle type. Thus, it is possible to modify Kirsopp in view Schripp to obtain the claimed values of the nvPM emissions.
Consequently the combination of Kirsopp and Scrhripp is appropriate.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. 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.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights