,DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 02/27/2026. Claims 1-8, 10-22 are pending. Claims 4, 6, 12 and 22 are withdrawn.
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.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-11643979-B1
“BEMMENT”
US-20070125093-A1
“BURD”
US-20230332543-A1
“BEMMENT-543”
US-20130125556-A1
“HOKE”
US-20200141330-A1
“LLANO”
This action references the following non-patent documents:
AUTHOR OR EDITOR
TITLE (DATE),
PUBLISHER,
EDITION
CHAPTERS / PAGES
COPY
HEREINAFTER
Durdina et al.
Reduction of Nonvolatile Particulate Matter Emissions of a Commercial Turbofan Engine at the Ground Level from the Use of a Sustainable Aviation Fuel Blend [2021],
American Chemical Society
ALL
PROVIDED
“DURDINA”
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA.
Re Claims 1 and 20, BEMMENT teaches a gas turbine engine 10 for an aircraft and method for operating the engine (claim 19), the engine comprising:
a controller [EEC 42];
a bypass duct 22;
an engine core 11 with a combustor 16 having a number of fuel spray nozzles [fuel injectors] (29:21-26, 62:6-18); and
a fuel distribution valve configured to control fuel to the combustor (53:39-49, 66:46 to 67:21);
wherein:
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 6.66 (20:22-42)
the controller is configured to separately provide 7% available thrust for given operating conditions [idle] and 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions [take-off] (23:39 to 24:7; see also 24:8 to 25:48, 33:22-33 and 35:55 to 38:40);
a first idle-MTO nvPM emission index ratio is:
( EIidle / EImaxTO )
EIidle is an nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for given operating conditions;
EImaxTO is an nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (a first idle-MTO nvPM emission index ratio as defined is necessarily present where the gas turbine is operated at idle and take-off as described at 23:39 to 24:7; see also 31:5-13 and 66:46-61);
the gas turbine engine is configured so that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is a value when the fuel delivered to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (31:5-13 and 66:46 to 67:33), and
the sustainable aviation fuel is a biofuel, renewable aviation fuel, renewable jet fuel, alternative fuel or biojet fuel (28:63 to 29:6, 29:48 to 30:16), produced from biological or non-biological resources but not a fossil fuel (‘renewable’ hydrocarbons produced from biological or non-biological resources, 29:1-3; as understood by those of ordinary skill, renewable refers to fuels that are not fossil fuel). However, BEMMENT as discussed so far fails to expressly teach the controller is configured to control the fuel distribution valve to separately provide 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions and 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions.
BEMMENT further teaches controlling the controller is configured to control the fuel distribution valve to separately provide desired characteristics at particular operating conditions (53:39-49, 66:46 to 67:21) and that the particular operating conditions include take-off and idle (23:39 to 24:7). 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 engine such that the controller is configured to control the fuel distribution valve to separately provide 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions and 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions in order to automatically operate an aircraft engine according to one or more variable fuel characteristics without intervention of a pilot for efficient, tailored control of the propulsion system (67:34-50, 34:31-45). BEMMENT notes multiple combustor types may be used, including rich and lean combustion (62:6-27). However, BEMMENT fails to specify the combustor is a rich burn, quick quench, lean burn (RQL) combustor having the number of fuel spray nozzles in the range of 14-22 and having, along a length of the combustor, a rich zone, a quick quench zone and a lean zone the RQL combustor is configured to burn fuel at a fuel/air ratio higher than stoichiometric in the rich zone and add air to quench combustion so that the fuel/air ratio transitions to lower than stoichiometric in the quick quench zone
BURD teaches a gas turbine engine for an aircraft and a method of operating the same (¶¶0029-0036), the engine comprising a rich burn, quick quench, lean burn (RQL) combustor (¶¶0030-0036) having a number of fuel spray nozzles in the range of 14-22 (¶0031), the combustor having, along a length of the combustor, a rich zone, a quick quench zone and a lean zone the RQL combustor is configured to burn fuel at a fuel/air ratio higher than stoichiometric in the rich zone and add air to quench combustion so that the fuel/air ratio transitions to lower than stoichiometric in the quick quench zone (¶¶0035-0036; see also ¶¶0003-0008). 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 engine wherein the combustor is a rich burn, quick quench, lean burn (RQL) combustor having the number of fuel spray nozzles in the range of 14-22 and having, along a length of the combustor, a rich zone, a quick quench zone and a lean zone the RQL combustor is configured to burn fuel at a fuel/air ratio higher than stoichiometric in the rich zone and add air to quench combustion so that the fuel/air ratio transitions to lower than stoichiometric in the quick quench zone, in order to provide a desirably sized engine (¶0031) with a combustor able to balance performance, emissions formation/output and residence time (¶¶0040-0041). However, BEMMENT in view of BURD fails to teach the controller is configured to control the gas turbine engine so that viscosity of the fuel on entry to the RQL combustor is 0.58 mm2/s or lower and controlling the gas turbine engine so that viscosity of the fuel on entry to the RQL combustor is 0.58 mm2/s or lower.
BEMMENT-543 teaches a controller is configured to control a gas turbine engine’s fuel and heat exchange system so that viscosity of the fuel on entry to the combustor is 0.58 mm2/s or lower and controlling the gas turbine engine so that viscosity of the fuel on entry to the combustor is 0.58 mm2/s or lower (BEMMENT-543 ¶¶26, 86-87, 90-102, 219, 278). 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 engine the controller is configured to control the gas turbine engine so that viscosity of the fuel on entry to the RQL combustor is 0.58 mm2/s or lower and the method wherein controlling the gas turbine engine so that viscosity of the fuel on entry to the RQL combustor is 0.58 mm2/s or lower, in order to optimize fuel flow to improve engine efficiency (BEMMENT-543 ¶¶90-102). However, BEMMENT in view of BURD and BEMMENT ‘543 as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the gas turbine engine is configured so that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 when the fuel delivered to the RQL combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel.
[continued on next page]
DURDINA teaches a gas turbine engine wherein a first idle-MTO nvPM emission index ratio is:
(EIidle / EImaxTO )
EIidle is an nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions;
EImaxTO is an nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the the given operating conditions (pages 14576-14582), the engine configured so that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 when the fuel delivered to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel [HEFA-SPK] (See Figure 2A; EImaxTO at around 100% available thrust = ~186 mg/kg, EIidle at around 7% is between ~1 mg/kg at point “B” to ~2.5 mg/kg at point “A” annotated in the Image below; NOTE either of the data points annotated “AROUND 7% AVAILABLE THRUST” qualify as around 7%; in either case, the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is well below 0.8, see Figure 2A) wherein the sustainable aviation fuel is a biofuel, renewable aviation fuel, renewable jet fuel, alternative fuel or biojet fuel, produced from biological or non-biological resources but not a fossil fuel (HEFA-SPK is a renewable fuel not a fossil-fuel). 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 wherein the gas turbine engine is configured so that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 when the fuel delivered to the RQL combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel that is a biofuel, renewable aviation fuel, renewable jet fuel, alternative fuel or biojet fuel, produced from biological or non-biological resources but not a fossil fuel, in order pursue use of a fuel deemed to reduce aviation’s adverse environmental effects and/or reduce emissions (DURDINA page 14576). Providing the method such that it comprises: providing fuel comprising the sustainable aviation fuel to the fuel spray nozzles (and then to the combustor) to operate the gas turbine engine at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions and to operate the gas turbine engine at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions such that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 would have been obvious for the same reasons and to operate the engine between idle and takeoff using fuel deemed to reduce aviation’s adverse effects and/or reduce emissions.
PNG
media_image1.png
1133
1077
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, even without extrapolating specific values for the emission indexes, done above for Applicant’s convenience, one of ordinary skill would have appreciated from Figure 2A DURDINA teaches first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio less than 0.8 in Figure 2A. Both points labelled “A” and “B” above within the range covered by “around” 7% of available thrust. Notably, DURDINA utilizes sustainable aviation fuel consonant with BEMMENT-543 ¶0090.
The claim is obvious for the reasons discussed above. In addition to DURDINA, the prior art also recognizes that the level of nvPM (non-volatile particulate matter) emissions are result effective and may be controlled via fuel selection and/or blending (BEMMENT 29:7-38, 31:5-14, 66:46-62; BEMMENT-543 ¶0215; DURDINA page 14576) in order to reduce contrails and/or reduce negative environmental impact (BEMMENT 29:7-38, 31:5-14, 66:46-62; BEMMENT-543 ¶0215; DURDINA page 14576, 14582). In addition to the reasons already set forth above, providing and operating with first idle-MTO nvPM emission index ratio in the claimed range (e.g., at the value taught by DURDINA) would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date in order to reduce contrails and/or environmental impact (BEMMENT 29:7-38, 31:5-14, 66:46-62; BEMMENT-543 ¶0215; DURDINA page 14576, 14582) and since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Re Claim 2, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1 as discussed above, and wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than 0.708 (see Claim 1 above with respect to DURDINA; teaches the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is ~0.006 at point “B” and ~0.013 at point “A”, both of which are ‘around’ 7% of available thrust).
Re Claim 3, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1 as discussed above and wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than or equal to 0.5 (see Claim 1 above with respect to DURDINA; teaches the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is ~0.006 at point “B” and ~0.013 at point “A”, both of which are ‘around’ 7% of available thrust).
Re Claim 5, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1 as discussed above and wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is greater than or equal to 0.0103 (see Claim 1 above with respect to DURDINA; teaches the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is ~0.013 at point “A” which is ‘around’ 7% of available thrust).
Re Claim 7, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1 as discussed above, which necessarily includes a second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is defined as: (EIidle,SAF / EImaxTO,SAF) / (EIidle,FF / EImaxTO,FF ) where: EIidle,SAF is an nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, and if a fuel provided to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel; EImaxTO,SAF is an nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel; EIidle,FF is and nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel; EImaxTO,FF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel. However, BEMMENT in view of BURD and DURDINA as discussed so far fails to teach the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 1.
DURDINA further teaches for sustainable aviation fuel in Figure 2A that EI--idle,SAF / EImaxTO,SAF is about 0.013 [2.5 / 186] (at points “A” and “C” as labeled in the Image above).
DURDINA further teaches for fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel [JET A-1] in Figure 2A that EI--idle,FF / EImaxTO,FF is about 0.022 [5 / 230] (at points “A” and “C” as labeled in the Image above). As such, in Figure 2A DURDINA teaches a second idle-MTO nvPM emissions of 0.59, which is less than one. 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 wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 1 for the reasons discussed above with respect to DURDINA in Claim 1.
Re Claim 8, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 7 as discussed above and wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than or equal to 0.8 (see Claim 7 above with respect to DURDINA; teaches the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is 0.59).
Re Claim 10, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 7 as discussed above and wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is greater than or equal to 0.03 (see Claim 7 above with respect to DURDINA; teaches the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is 0.59).
Re Claim 11, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 7 as discussed above and wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is greater than or equal to 0.118 (see Claim 7 above with respect to DURDINA; teaches the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is 0.59).
Re Claim 18, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the fuel provided to the combustor comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel.
BEMMENT further teaches wherein the fuel provided to the combustor comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel (claim 19; 29:48-56). 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 wherein the fuel provided to the combustor further comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel, in order to control a control parameter based on fuel characteristics (66:26 to 67:9).
Additionally, referring to Figure 2A of DURDINA, while one of ordinary skill would appreciate that increasing a blended amount of HEFA-SPK would be likely to decrease EImass at 7%, 100% available thrust a certain amount, they would also appreciate that given 50% hydrocarbon Jet A-1 EI mg/kg at 100 percent thrust would certainly not fall below 75 mg/kg in view of Figure 2A (which shows 230 mg/kg for 100% Jet A-1 and 186 mg/kg for 68% Jet A-1 at 100% available thrust) and as such would have appreciated that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine would remain substantially less than 0.8. 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 provided to the combustor comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel and the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 to meet desired emissions levels (BEMMENT 31:5-13 and 66:46 to 67:33).
Re Claim 19, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the engine of claim 1 and further teaches method of operating the gas turbine engine of claim 1. BEMMENT further teaches the method comprising providing fuel comprising the sustainable aviation fuel to the fuel spray nozzles (BEMMENT claim 19; 29:21-38, 62:50-55). 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 a method of operating the gas turbine engine of claim 1, the method comprising providing fuel comprising the sustainable aviation fuel to the fuel spray nozzles, to provide renewable fuel source, improve emission performance and/or fuel efficiency (BEMMENT 29:1-66).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA as applied above, further in view of HOKE.
Re Claims 13-15, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the fuel spray nozzles comprises one or more duplex nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles, wherein the duplex fuel spray nozzles are arranged in groups about the circumference of the combustor, wherein each group of duplex fuel spray nozzles comprises 2-8 nozzles.
HOKE teaches fuel spray nozzles comprising one or more duplex nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles (Fig. 3; ¶¶0020-0023, 0027-0028) wherein the duplex fuel spray nozzles are arranged in groups about the circumference of the combustor (Fig. 3, ¶¶0027-0028) wherein each group of duplex fuel spray nozzles comprises 2-8 nozzles (Fig. 3). 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 engine such that the fuel spray nozzles comprises one or more duplex nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles, wherein the duplex fuel spray nozzles are arranged in groups about the circumference of the combustor, and wherein each group of duplex fuel spray nozzles comprises 2-8 nozzles (Fig. 3), in order to provide differential coupling to the associated occurring acoustic frequencies (HOKE ¶¶0027-0028).
Re Claim 16, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 13 as discussed above, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the combustor comprises one or more ignitors and the one or more ignitors are arranged adjacent to one or more of the duplex fuel spray nozzles.
HOKE further teaches the combustor comprises one or more ignitors 124 and the one or more ignitors are arranged adjacent to one or more of the duplex fuel spray nozzles (¶0028). 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 engine wherein the combustor comprises one or more ignitors arranged adjacent to one or more of the duplex fuel spray nozzles, in order to provide differential coupling to the associated occurring acoustic frequencies (HOKE ¶¶0027-0028).
Claims 17 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA as applied above, further in view of LLANO.
Re Claims 17 and 21, BEMMENT in view of BURD, BEMMENT-543 and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, the engine necessarily including number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size. BEMMENT further teaches a high pressure compressor in the engine, but as discussed so far BEMMENT in view of BURD and DURDINA fails to specify top of climb, and wherein a number of the fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size in the range 2 to 6 (as claimed in claim 21) the number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size is in the range 2.5 to 4.5 (as claimed in Claim 17).
BURD teaches number of fuel nozzles is result effective routinely optimized for desired engine size (BURD ¶0031). LLANO teaches a high pressure compressor with a core size defined as mass flow * T0.5 / P (LLANO ¶¶0084, 0089) and teaches that the core size is a result effective variable routinely optimized and modulated for a given number of fuel nozzles for achieving engine temperatures and powers for given power conditions (¶¶0089-0097; Figs. 5-8). LLANO further teaches a power condition of top of climb (¶0046) and wherein for the gas turbine engine at top of climb, top of climb may occur at 35,000 ft (¶0050; cruise at 35,000 equates to top of climb at 35,000 ft). 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 gas turbine engine at top of climb, with top of climb occurring at 35,000 ft (to reach cruise altitude power condition) and to provide the number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size is in the range 2.5 to 4.5, in order to achieve desired engine power and temperatures and/or improved compressor operability and/or reduced ground idle thrust and/or cooling modulation and/or reduced cooling flow and/or improved fuel consumption (LLANO ¶¶0091, 0096, 0118-0125) and since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art rejections are not found persuasive.
The examiner appreciates facts presented by Applicant to the CFM56-7B engine presented by Applicant. However, the rejections are based upon the combined teachings of the prior art. The primary reference BEMMENT suggests numerous modifications and variations may be made to the engine (see BEMMENT 17:1 to 25:26 and BEMMENT 62:6-19). These include both bypass ratios (20:22-42) and both rich and lean combustion types (62:6-19). Additionally, the prior art also recognizes that the level of nvPM (non-volatile particulate matter) emissions may be controlled via fuel selection and/or blending (BEMMENT 29:7-38, 31:5-14, 66:46-62; BEMMENT-543 ¶0215; DURDINA page 14576) in order to reduce contrails and/or reduce negative environmental impact (BEMMENT 29:7-38, 31:5-14, 66:46-62; BEMMENT-543 ¶0215; DURDINA page 14576, 14582). This is also evidenced by the prior art submitted by Applicant in the most recent IDS, which has not been applied (See US 12,018,841 at e.g., 8:7 to 13:24).
Since primary reference BEMMENT is suggestive of fuel selection and blending choices with respect to particulate matter, and DURDINA suggests the values in the claimed range would provide a benefit (DURDINA 14582), the combination of references would suggest providing first idle-MTO nvPM emission index within the claimed range, even for engines that may vary slightly in bypass ratio and/or combustor type.
The prior art applied is analogous art and has been considered in its entirety. Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art has been weighed, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. The additional teachings of DURDINA do not conflict with, much less outweigh, the teachings of BEMMENT.
Applicant's arguments appear to hinge on a bodily incorporation of DURDINA into the primary reference rather than considering what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145 (III). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the proposed combination of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose.
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
May 30, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights