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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5, lines 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “3% hydrogen” should be - -3% of the hydrogen- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23, lines 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the diameter of gas turbine engine fan” should be - -a diameter of the fan- -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speak et al (US 20230340915 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025) in view of Swann et al (US 20220316410 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025)
Regarding claim 1, Speak discloses a fuel delivery system (The fuel system of Figure 2) for a combustor (Figure 8; 700) of a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 400), the fuel delivery system comprising:
a primary fuel tank (Figure 2; 100) configured to store liquid hydrogen (Functional Language, Paragraph 0009);
a secondary fuel tank (Figure 2; 200) configured to store fuel (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008);
a fuel nozzle (Figure 2; 500) configured to burn the liquid hydrogen to produce a pilot flame and to burn the fuel to produce a main flame (Functional Language, the fuel nozzle is configured to burn liquid hydrogen and produce a pilot flame and to burn the fuel to produce a main flame);
a primary fuel line (The line from Figure 2; 100 to 510) fluidly connecting the primary fuel tank to the fuel nozzle;
a secondary fuel line (Figure 2; 552) fluidly connecting the secondary fuel tank to the fuel nozzle;
a control valve (Figure 2; 512) configured to control the flow of liquid hydrogen (The hydrogen in the primary fuel line) in the primary fuel line (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008); and
an engine control (Figure 2; 600) configured to control the control valve (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008).
Speak does not disclose an engine control configured to control the control valve to deliver between 3% and 10% of hydrogen to the fuel nozzle in response to input from one or more sensors on an aircraft indicating that contrails are likely to occur when the gas turbine engine is in operation;
wherein the engine control is further configured to deliver between 3% and 10% of the hydrogen to the fuel nozzle when an avionics system on the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is in a location that requires contrail abatement.
However, Swann teaches an engine control (Figure 1; 130) configured to control a control valve (Figure 1; 116) to deliver hydrogen to a fuel nozzle (The fuel spray nozzles or injectors of Paragraph 0059) in response to input (Paragraph 0057) from one or more sensors (Figure 1; 132, 134, 136, 138, 139) on an aircraft (Paragraph 0003) indicating that contrails are likely to occur when the gas turbine engine is in occur (Paragraph 0060, 0067);
wherein the engine control is further configured to deliver the hydrogen to the fuel nozzle when an avionics system (The portion of the calculation module that makes the assessment of Paragraph 0077) on the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is in a location that requires contrail abatement (The locations of contrail abatement in Paragraph 0060, 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak wherein an engine control configured to control the control valve to deliver hydrogen to the fuel nozzle in response to input from one or more sensors on an aircraft indicating that contrails are likely to occur when the gas turbine engine is in operation; wherein the engine control is further configured to deliver the hydrogen to the fuel nozzle when an avionics system on the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is in a location that requires contrail abatement as taught by and suggested by Swann in order to avoid contrail formation (Paragraph 0060, the modification opens the control valve to avoid contrails).
Speak in view of Swann does not teach delivering between 3% and 10% of hydrogen.
However, Swann teaches in Paragraph 0060 that the percentage of hydrogen used is a results-effective variable that controls contrail formation. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the percentage of hydrogen used is a results-effective variable that controls contrail formation. Thus, the claimed limitation of delivering between 3% and 10% of hydrogen is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the fuel delivery system of Speak in view of Swann to have the claimed percentage of the hydrogen, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of the control valve of Speak in view of Swann disclosed to require adjustment.
“[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). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak in view of Swann to deliver between 3% and 10% of hydrogen in order to optimize contrail formation.
Regarding claim 2, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak does not disclose wherein the one or more sensors are configured to sense one or more atmospheric conditions near the gas turbine engines, wherein the engine control is configured to receive the input from sensors, wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve when contrails are likely to occur.
However, Swann teaches wherein the one or more sensors are configured to sense one or more atmospheric conditions (Functional Language, Paragraph 0057) near the gas turbine engines, wherein the engine control is configured to receive the input from sensors (Functional Language, Paragraph 0057), wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve when contrails are likely to occur (Functional Language, Paragraph 0060, 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak wherein the one or more sensors are configured to sense one or more atmospheric conditions near the gas turbine engines, wherein the engine control is configured to receive the input from sensors, wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve when contrails are likely to occur as taught by and suggested by Swann in order to avoid contrail formation (Paragraph 0060, this is the same modification as claim 1)
Regarding claim 3, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak does not disclose avionic controls, wherein the avionic controls provide an input to the engine control, wherein the avionics controls are configured to determine when abatement of contrails is desired, wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve when the input is received.
However, Swann teaches avionic controls (The model of at least Paragraph 0076 and modules of at least Paragraph 0077 and 0078), wherein the avionic controls provide an input (Paragraph 0011, 0082) to an engine control (Figure 1; 130), wherein the avionics controls are configured to determine when abatement of contrails is desired, wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve when the input is received (Functional Language, Paragraph 0060, 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak to include avionic controls, wherein the avionic controls provide an input to the engine control, wherein the avionics controls are configured to determine when abatement of contrails is desired, wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve when the input is received as taught by and suggested by Swann in order to avoid contrail formation (Paragraph 0060, this is the same modification as claim 1)
Regarding claim 5, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses wherein the control valve is configured to provide 3% of hydrogen to the fuel nozzle (Functional Language, the control valve is capable of delivering 3% of hydrogen to the first fuel nozzle).
Regarding claim 10, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses wherein the primary tank is a cryogenic tank (Paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 11, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses wherein the primary tank comprises two or more cryogenic tanks (Figure 1; 100).
Regarding claim 12, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses wherein the two or more cryogenic tanks are located in one or more wings (Figure 1; 14) of an aircraft (Figure 1; 10).
Regarding claim 21, Speak discloses a fuel delivery system (The fuel system of Figure 2) for a combustor (Figure 8; 700) of a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 400), the fuel delivery system comprising:
a primary fuel tank (Figure 2; 100) configured to store liquid hydrogen (Functional Language, Paragraph 0009);
a secondary fuel tank (Figure 2; 200) configured to store fuel (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008);
a fuel nozzle (Figure 2; 500) configured to burn the liquid hydrogen to produce a pilot flame and to burn the fuel to produce a main flame (Functional Language, the fuel nozzle is configured to burn liquid hydrogen and produce a pilot flame and to burn the fuel to produce a main flame), wherein the fuel nozzle is a blunt body stabilized fuel injector (Figure 8; 500 is a blunt body stabilized fuel injector);
a primary fuel line (The line from Figure 2; 100 to 510) fluidly connecting the primary fuel tank to the fuel nozzle;
a secondary fuel line (Figure 2; 552) fluidly connecting the secondary fuel tank to the fuel nozzle;
a control valve (Figure 2; 512) configured to control the flow of liquid hydrogen (The hydrogen in the primary fuel line) in the primary fuel line (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008); and
an engine control (Figure 2; 600) configured to control the control valve (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008).
Speak does not disclose an engine control configured to control the control valve to deliver between 3% and 10% of hydrogen to the fuel nozzle in response to input from one or more sensors on an aircraft indicating that contrails are likely to occur when the gas turbine engine is in operation;
wherein the engine control is further configured to deliver between 3% and 10% of the hydrogen to the fuel nozzle when an avionics system on the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is in a location that requires contrail abatement.
However, Swann teaches an engine control (Figure 1; 130) configured to control a control valve (Figure 1; 116) to deliver hydrogen to a fuel nozzle (The fuel spray nozzles or injectors of Paragraph 0059) in response to input (Paragraph 0057) from one or more sensors (Figure 1; 132, 134, 136, 138, 139) on an aircraft (Paragraph 0003) indicating that contrails are likely to occur when the gas turbine engine is in occur (Paragraph 0060, 0067);
wherein the engine control is further configured to deliver the hydrogen to the fuel nozzle when an avionics system (The portion of the calculation module that makes the assessment of Paragraph 0077) on the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is in a location that requires contrail abatement (The locations of contrail abatement in Paragraph 0060, 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak wherein an engine control configured to control the control valve to deliver hydrogen to the fuel nozzle in response to input from one or more sensors on an aircraft indicating that contrails are likely to occur when the gas turbine engine is in operation; wherein the engine control is further configured to deliver the hydrogen to the fuel nozzle when an avionics system on the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is in a location that requires contrail abatement as taught by and suggested by Swann in order to avoid contrail formation (Paragraph 0060, the modification opens the control valve to avoid contrails).
Speak in view of Swann does not teach delivering between 3% and 10% of the hydrogen.
However, Swann teaches in Paragraph 0060 that the percentage of hydrogen used is a results-effective variable that controls contrail formation. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the percentage of hydrogen used is a results-effective variable that controls contrail formation. Thus, the claimed limitation of delivering between 3% and 10% of the hydrogen is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the fuel delivery system of Speak in view of Swann to have the claimed percentage of the hydrogen, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of the control valve of Speak in view of Swann disclosed to require adjustment.
“[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). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak in view of Swann to deliver between 3% and 10% of the hydrogen in order to optimize contrail formation.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speak in view of Swann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamath et al (US 20160025339 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025)
Regarding claim 8, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses second cooling lines (The line with Figure 2; 110)
Speak in view of Swann does not teach first cooling lines configured to allow the secondary fuel to cool the gas turbine engine; and second cooling lines configured to allow the primary fuel to cool the secondary fuel.
However, Kamath teaches first cooling lines (Figure 9; 210) configured to allow secondary fuel (The fuel in Figure 9; 210) to cool a gas turbine engine (Figure 4; 101. Functional Language, the fuel-oil cooler can cool engine oil. Paragraph 0036 states oil can be a heat source in a heat exchanger); and
second cooling lines (The line from Figure 4; 12 to 80 which includes Figure 9; 430. Paragraph 0102) configured to allow primary fuel (The fuel in Figure 9; 430) to cool the secondary fuel (Functional Language, Paragraph 0096).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak in view of Swann to include first cooling lines configured to allow the secondary fuel to cool the gas turbine engine; and second cooling lines configured to allow the primary fuel to cool the secondary fuel as taught by and suggested by Kamath in order to cool the secondary fuel (Paragraph 0096, the modification has the primary fuel cooling the secondary fuel) and because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Kamath’s cooling of oil using fuel according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Swann’s fuel delivery system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case cooling oil, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification adds a fuel-oil cooler).
Regarding claim 9, Speak in view of Swann and Kamath teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses wherein the second cooling lines are configured to cool the gas turbine engine (Functional Language, Paragraph 0040).
Claim(s) 13, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speak in view of Swann as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Snyder et al (US 10730635).
Regarding claim 13, Speak in view of Swann teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses wherein the cryogenic tank is located in a wing (Figure 1; 14) mounted to a nacelle (The nacelle of Figure 1; 400) for the gas turbine engine.
Speak in view of Swann does not teach wherein the cryogenic tank is located in an engine wing mounted to a fan cowl section of a nacelle for the gas turbine engine.
However, Snyder teaches wherein an accessory (Column 6, lines 29-40) is located in an engine wing (Figure 4; 72) mounted to a fan cowl section (Figure 4; 86) of a nacelle (Figure 4; 90 and 86) for a gas turbine engine (Figure 4; 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak in view of Swann wherein the cryogenic tank is located in an engine wing mounted to a fan cowl section of a nacelle for the gas turbine engine as taught by and suggested by Snyder in order to produce a significant amount of thrust (Column 4, lines 4-5, The modification makes the gas turbine a high bypass turbofan), produce lift that offsets the weight of the gas turbine engine (Column 4, lines 58-64, The modification adds engine wings which extends from the nacelle within a range of 0.3 and 0.74 of the diameter of the fan), and advantageously contain various components (Column 6, lines 29-32, The modification has the cryogenic tank in the engine wing).
Regarding claim 22, Speak in view of Swann and Snyder teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak in view of Swann does not teach wherein the gas turbine engine includes a fan and the engine wing has an airfoil shape and projects outwardly from the fan cowl section of the nacelle by a distance between 0.30 and 0.74 times a diameter of the fan.
However, Snyder teaches wherein the gas turbine engine includes a fan (Figure 1; 42) and the engine wing has an airfoil shape (Figure 4 shows the engine wing having an airfoil shape) and projects outwardly from the fan cowl section of the nacelle by a distance between 0.30 and 0.74 times a diameter of the fan (Column 1, lines 43-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak in view of Swann wherein the gas turbine engine includes a fan and the engine wing has an airfoil shape and projects outwardly from the fan cowl section of the nacelle by a distance between 0.30 and 0.74 times a diameter of the fan as taught by and suggested by Snyder in order to produce a significant amount of thrust (Column 4, lines 4-5), produce lift that offsets the weight of the gas turbine engine (Column 4, lines 58-64), and advantageously contain various components (Column 6, lines 29-32, These are the same modification as claim 13).
Claim(s) 14-15, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speak in view of Snyder et al (US 10730635).
Regarding claim 14, Speak discloses a fuel delivery system (The fuel system of Figure 2) for a combustor (Figure 8; 700) of a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 400), the fuel delivery system comprising:
a cryogenic tank (Figure 2; 100. Paragraph 0070);
a secondary fuel tank (Figure 2; 200) configured to store fuel (Functional Language, the fuel in Figure 2; 200);
a cooling line (The line from Figure 8; 100 to 510) fluidly connecting the cryogenic tank to a fuel nozzle (Figure 2; 500); and
a secondary fuel line (The central line from Figure 8; 800 to 510) fluidly connecting the secondary fuel tank to the fuel nozzle; and
wherein the cooling line is configured to cool the secondary fuel line (Functional Language, the cooling line is configured to cool the secondary fuel line because the secondary fuel line is heated due to its proximity to combustion. The fuel from Figure 8; 100 of Speak is cooler than the secondary fuel line because this fuel is not combusted, so that the cooling line cools the secondary fuel line).
Speak does not disclose wherein the cryogenic tank is located in an engine wing mounted to a fan cowl section of a nacelle for the gas turbine engine.
However, Speak teaches wherein an accessory (Column 6, lines 29-40) is located in an engine wing (Figure 4; 72) mounted to a fan cowl section (Figure 4; 86) of a nacelle (Figure 4; 90 and 86) for s gas turbine engine (Figure 4; 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak in view of Swann wherein the cryogenic tank is located in an engine wing mounted to a fan cowl section of a nacelle for the gas turbine engine as taught by and suggested by Snyder in order to produce a significant amount of thrust (Column 4, lines 4-5, The modification makes the gas turbine a high bypass turbofan), produce lift that offsets the weight of the gas turbine engine (Column 4, lines 58-64, The modification adds engine wings which extends from the nacelle within a range of 0.3 and 0.74 of the diameter of the fan), and advantageously contain various components (Column 6, lines 29-32, The modification has the cryogenic tank in the engine wing).
Regarding claim 15, Speak in view of Snyder teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak further discloses wherein the cryogenic tank is configured to store one of liquid natural gas, liquid nitrogen, and liquid hydrogen (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 23, Speak in view of Snyder teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak does not disclose wherein the gas turbine engine includes a fan and the engine wing has an airfoil shape and projects outwardly from the fan cowl section of the nacelle by a distance between 0.30 and 0.74 times a diameter of the fan.
However, Snyder teaches wherein the gas turbine engine includes a fan (Figure 1; 42) and the engine wing has an airfoil shape (Figure 4 shows the engine wing having an airfoil shape) and projects outwardly from the fan cowl section of the nacelle by a distance between 0.30 and 0.74 times a diameter of the fan (Column 1, lines 43-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak wherein the gas turbine engine includes a fan and the engine wing has an airfoil shape and projects outwardly from the fan cowl section of the nacelle by a distance between 0.30 and 0.74 times a diameter of the fan as taught by and suggested by Snyder in order to produce a significant amount of thrust (Column 4, lines 4-5), produce lift that offsets the weight of the gas turbine engine (Column 4, lines 58-64), and advantageously contain various components (Column 6, lines 29-32, These are the same modification as claim 13).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speak in view of Remy et al (US 20100293959 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025).
Regarding claim 16, Speak discloses fuel delivery system (The fuel system of Figure 2) for a combustor (Figure 8; 700) of a gas turbine engine (Figure 1; 400), the fuel delivery system comprising:
a cryogenic fuel tank (Figure 2; 100. Paragraph 0070) configured to store a primary fuel (Functional Language, The fuel in Figure 2; 100) comprising liquid hydrogen (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008);
a secondary fuel tank (Figure 2; 200) configured to store hydrocarbon fuel (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008);
a fuel nozzle (Figure 2; 500) configured to burn the liquid hydrogen to produce a pilot flame and to burn the hydrocarbon fuel to produce a main flame (Functional Language, the fuel nozzle is configured to burn liquid hydrogen and produce a pilot flame and to burn the fuel to produce a main flame);
a primary fuel line (The line from Figure 2; 100 to 510) fluidly connecting the cryogenic fuel tank to the fuel nozzle;
a secondary fuel line (Figure 2; 552) fluidly connecting the secondary fuel tank to the fuel nozzle;
a control valve (Figure 2; 512) configured to control the flow of the primary fuel in the primary fuel line (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008); and
an engine control (Figure 2; 600) and wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve (Functional Language, Paragraph 0008).
Speak does not disclose an engine control configured to monitor engine operation and wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve to increase the flow of the primary fuel to the fuel nozzle when a low fuel flow from the secondary fuel tank is present or when the gas turbine engine is in an idle position to provide at least one of a higher burn temperature at idle and reduced generation of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.
However, Remy teaches wherein an engine control (The controller of Paragraph 0011) configured to monitor engine operation (Functional Language, Paragraph 0043, 0044) and wherein the engine control is configured to open a control valve (The hydrogen valve of Paragraph 0051) to increase a flow of a primary fuel (The flow of hydrogen fuel) to a fuel nozzle (Figure 4; 38. Paragraph 0051) when a low fuel flow from a secondary fuel tank (The flow from Figure 1; 410) is present (Functional Language, the low power condition is when there is low fuel flow from the secondary fuel tank, Paragraph 0043, 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak wherein the engine control configured to monitor engine operation and wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve to increase the flow of the primary fuel to the fuel nozzle when a low fuel flow from the secondary fuel tank is present or when the gas turbine engine is in an idle position to provide at least one of a higher burn temperature at idle and reduced generation of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons as taught by and suggested by Remy in order to provide a smaller combustor size (Paragraph 0028, The modification uses hydrogen fuel when there is a low fuel flow from the secondary fuel tank)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speak in view of Remy as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Teets et al (US 20130049364 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025).
Regarding claim 19, Speak in view of Remy teaches the invention as claimed.
Speak in view of Remy does not teach wherein the gas turbine engine is configured to receive power from a battery, wherein the engine control is further configured to open the control valve when the gas turbine engine receives power from the battery.
However, Teets teaches wherein a gas turbine engine (Paragraph 0013) is configured to receive power from a battery (Figure 1; 33. Functional Language, Paragraph 0053), wherein an engine control (Figure 3; 24) is further configured to open a control valve (Figure 3; 23) when the gas turbine engine receives power from the battery (Functional Language, Paragraph 0053, 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Speak in view of Remy wherein the gas turbine engine is configured to receive power from a battery, wherein the engine control is further configured to open the control valve when the gas turbine engine receives power from the battery as taught by and suggested by Teets in order to store electrical energy and use electrical energy to start the engine (Paragraph 0003, 0053, 0054. The modification has a battery and generator attached to the gas turbine engine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art does not disclose “wherein the engine control is further configured to deliver between 3% and 10% of hydrogen to the fuel nozzle when an avionics system on the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is in a location that requires contrail abatement” and “an engine control configured to monitor engine operation and wherein the engine control is configured to open the control valve to increase the flow of the primary fuel to the fuel nozzle when a low fuel flow from the secondary fuel tank is present or when the gas turbine engine is in an idle position to provide at least one of a higher burn temperature at idle and reduced generation of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above in this OA, the prior art of record discloses, teaches, or suggests these claim limitations or teaches results-effective variables to obviate these claim limitations. Furthermore, these statements are conclusory, and as such, are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Logan et al (US 20180215479 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025) states in Paragraph 0002 fuel oil coolers typically heat fuel and cool engine oil
Adique et al (US 20220381186 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025) states in Paragraph 0002 fuel oil coolers typically heat fuel and cool engine oil
Grech et al (US 20240328359 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025) states in Paragraph 0048 that fuel flow is typically low during low power operations
Mansour et al (US 20040124282 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025) states in Paragraph 0008 that fuel flow is typically low during low power operations
Adibhatla et al (US 20170175646 as referenced in OA dated 4/16/2025) states in Paragraph 0025 that low power is the same as low fuel flow
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights