DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection in response to application filed 11/19/24. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier (US 6076356) in view of Glover (US 2019/0249869).
Regarding independent claim 1, Pelletier teaches a fuel spray nozzle 30 for a gas turbine engine, the fuel spray nozzle comprising: a feed arm 42 comprising a housing; a fuel tube 140 disposed within the housing, the fuel tube configured to receive a fuel (col. 5, l. 27-30), wherein the fuel tube is spaced apart from the housing, such that the housing and the fuel tube define an air gap therebetween (col. 5, l. 27-45), and wherein the fuel tube extends along a tube axis; and a nozzle head fluidly connected to the fuel tube and configured to receive the fuel from the fuel tube, wherein the nozzle head is further configured receive air and discharge an air-fuel mixture into a combustion chamber of the gas turbine engine (col. 4, l. 54 - col. 5, l. 15).
Pelletier teaches it is known to have a slip-fit (col. 2, l. 15-35) but is silent to a sleeve at least partially engaging with the fuel tube and surrounding at least a portion of the fuel tube along the tube axis, wherein the sleeve is disposed within the air gap and spaced apart from the housing, and wherein the sleeve is movably disposed around the fuel tube, such that the sleeve and the fuel tube are movable relative to each other along the tube axis.
Glover teaches a moveable intermediate sleeve structure within the air gap, movably disposed around the inner conduit along the axis [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Pelletier with a sleeve at least partially engaging with the fuel tube and surrounding at least a portion of the fuel tube along the tube axis, wherein the sleeve is disposed within the air gap and spaced apart from the housing, and wherein the sleeve is movably disposed around the fuel tube, such that the sleeve and the fuel tube are movable relative to each other along the tube axis as taught by Glover. Glover teaches this construction helps with differential thermal expansion of different materials [0043].
Regarding dependent claim 2, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pelletier further teaches the gap being 1.0 mm. Pelletier in view of Glover is silent to wherein the fuel tube comprises an outer tube surface defining an outer tube diameter, wherein the sleeve at least partially engages the outer tube surface of the fuel tube and comprises an inner sleeve surface defining an inner sleeve diameter, wherein the inner sleeve surface surrounds the outer tube surface of the fuel tube, and wherein the inner sleeve diameter is greater than the outer tube diameter by 0.1 millimetres to 0.5 millimetres.
Pelletier teaches a radial clearance of about 1.0mm, Pelletier also teaches it was known to size the gap such that the fuel conduit is as small as possible while maintaining enough air gap for thermal protection for the fuel in the fuel conduit and varying the size based on application (col. 5, ll. 46-65).
In view of the prior art teachings that the selecting: the size of the gap is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gap between the fuel tube and inner sleeve surface of Pelletier in view of Glover, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[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.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pelletier further teaches wherein the sleeve further comprises an outer sleeve surface opposite to the inner sleeve surface and facing the air gap, and a thickness defined between the inner sleeve surface and the outer sleeve surface, and wherein the thickness is from 0.5 millimetres to 1.5 millimetres (col. 5, ll. 27-36).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Glover further teaches wherein the sleeve further comprises at least one recess 102 extending from the inner sleeve surface towards the outer sleeve surface, wherein the fuel spray nozzle further comprises a sealing member 94 at least partially disposed within the at least one recess, and wherein the sealing member engages with the fuel tube [0046-0047].
Regarding dependent claim 5, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Glover further teaches wherein the sealing member comprises an O-ring [0055].
Regarding dependent claim 7, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Glover further teaches wherein the sleeve 94 comprises: a pair of ends spaced apart from each other with respect to the tube axis; and a pair of lips disposed at the pair of ends and engaging with the fuel tube, wherein each of the pair of lips is configured to scrape the fuel tube [0022].
Regarding dependent claim 8, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Glover further teaches further comprising at least one biasing member connected to the sleeve and engaging with the fuel tube, wherein the at least one biasing member is configured to maintain the sleeve in a predefined position with respect to the fuel tube [0006].
Regarding dependent claim 9, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pelletier in view of Glover further teaches wherein the sleeve has a melting temperature of greater than 160 °C. Inherent for any sleeve in gas turbine engine fuel nozzle environment.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pelletier further teaches a gas turbine engine 10 including the fuel spray nozzle of claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier in view of Glover and further in view of Burke et al. (US 2014/0305521).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Pelletier in view of Glover teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pelletier in view of Glover teaches sealing members made from proper materials.However, Pelletier in view of Glover is silent to wherein the sealing member comprises a fluoroelastomer polymer.
Burke teaches it was known to use a fluoroelastomer polymer seal in O-rings in gas turbine environments [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use fluoroelastomer polymer O-rings as taught by Burke in the fuel nozzle of Pelletier in view of Glover for high temperature applications [0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/CRAIG KIM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights