Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities, the recitation “further comprising a hydrogen fuel tank for holding the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase” is believed to be in error for - - further comprising a hydrogen fuel tank as the hydrogen source for holding the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents,
I. the recitations “a catalytic reactor fluidly coupled to a hydrogen source to receive hydrogen”, “the catalytic reactor catalytically reacts at least a portion of the oxygen in the reaction air with at least a portion of the hydrogen to … output … any unreacted hydrogen of the hydrogen supplied to the catalytic reactor”, and “a fuel nozzle fluidly coupled to the hydrogen source to receive a hydrogen fuel” render claim 1 indefinite because: it is unclear whether the claimed hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle refers to a) the unreacted hydrogen output from the claimed catalytic reactor; or b) a second flow of hydrogen from the claimed hydrogen source that is different from the flow of hydrogen received by the claimed catalytic reactor;
II. due to the ambiguity of I above, recitations “a diluent nozzle that is fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor to receive the diluent from the catalytic reactor” and “a fuel nozzle fluidly coupled to the hydrogen source to receive a hydrogen fuel” render claim 1 indefinite because: it is unclear whether the claimed diluent nozzle and the claimed fuel nozzle are a) a first nozzle receiving the claimed diluent WITHOUT receiving the claimed hydrogen fuel and a second nozzle receiving the claimed hydrogen fuel WITHOUT receiving the claimed diluent (when the claimed hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle refers to a second flow of hydrogen that is different from the flow of hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor); or b) two nozzles that receives both of the claimed diluent and the claimed hydrogen fuel (when the claimed hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle refers to the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor);
III. recitations “the catalytic reactor catalytically reacts at least a portion of the oxygen in the reaction air with at least a portion of the hydrogen to produce catalytically produced water to … output … any unreacted hydrogen of the hydrogen supplied to the catalytic reactor”, “a combustion chamber for combusting a fuel and air mixture”, and “a fuel nozzle fluidly coupled to the hydrogen source to receive a hydrogen fuel and to inject the hydrogen fuel into the combustion chamber to generate the fuel and air mixture” render claim 1 indefinite because:
i) due to the ambiguity of I above, it is unclear the claimed fuel and air mixture includes which flow of fuel, i.e., the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor (when the claimed hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle refers to the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor), or a second flow of hydrogen that is different from the flow of hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor (when the claimed hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle refers to a second flow of hydrogen that is different from the flow of hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor), or both, or a different fuel; and
ii) an unreacted portion of the reaction air from the claimed catalytic reactor is inherited from the recitation “the catalytic reactor catalytically reacts at least a portion of the oxygen in the reaction air with at least a portion of the hydrogen to produce catalytically produced water”, and thus, it is also unclear the claimed fuel and air mixture includes which flow of air, i.e., the unreacted portion of the reaction air from the claimed catalytic reactor; or a different flow of air; or both. It is noted that the ambiguity issue of ii)-III is cured in claim 10.
Regarding claim 17 and its dependents, the recitation “a vaporizer in fluid communication with the hydrogen source to receive the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase from the hydrogen source, the vaporizer heating the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase to at least one of a gaseous phase or a supercritical phase, the catalytic reactor being downstream of the vaporizer to receive the hydrogen in the gaseous phase or the supercritical phase and the fuel nozzle being downstream of the vaporizer to receive the hydrogen fuel in the gaseous phase or the supercritical phase” is indefinite because: due to the ambiguity of I-II of claim 1, it is unclear whether the vaporizer i) respectively receives and respectively heats the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle and the hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor (when the claimed hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle refers to a second flow of hydrogen that is different from the flow of hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor); or ii) receives a total hydrogen flow of the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle and the hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor (when the claimed hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle refers to a second flow of hydrogen that is different from the flow of hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor); or iii) receives and heats the hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor, wherein the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle is the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor.
Regarding claim 18 and its dependents, due to the ambiguity of I-II of claim 1 and claim 17, it is unclear term “the hydrogen fuel” refers to which flow of hydrogen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carroni 7610761.
Examiner Note: Due to the ambiguity of claim 1, it is interpreted that the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle is the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor, and a mixture of the catalytically produced water and the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor is received by both of two nozzles, wherein a first nozzle of the two nozzles is the fuel nozzle and a second nozzle of the two nozzles is the diluent nozzle.
Regarding claim 1, Carroni teaches the invention as claimed: A gas turbine engine (abstract) comprising:
a catalytic reactor (unit 1 comprising catalyst material coating ducts 8s, see Figs. 1-3 and col. 7, ll. 38-44 and col. 8, ll. 22-36) fluidly coupled to a hydrogen source (to provide the total hydrogen to 1 via feed line 5 in Fig. 1 or feed line 17 via Fig. 2, see col. 7, ll. 28-30, col. 8, ll. 46-49, col. 3, ll. 42-48) to receive hydrogen (the total amount of hydrogen provided to ducts 8s of unit 1 that includes a first portion of hydrogen that catalytically reacts and forms water and a second portion of hydrogen that does NOT react and mixes with the formed water, see Figs. 1-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65) and fluidly coupled to a reaction air source (the compressor of the gas turbine engine, see Figs. 1-3 and col. 8, ll. 57-61) to receive reaction air (the first portion of compressed air fed in ducts 8 in Figs. 1-2, see col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65) containing oxygen (inherit), wherein, when the catalytic reactor (1) receives the hydrogen and the reaction air (see Figs. 1-3), the catalytic reactor (1) catalytically reacts at least a portion of the oxygen in the reaction air (the first portion of compressed air fed in ducts 8 in Figs. 1-2) with at least a portion of the hydrogen (the first portion of hydrogen of the total amount of hydrogen fed in the ducts 8, see col. 3, ll. 10-28 and col. 9, ll. 15-20) to produce catalytically produced water and to output a diluent that includes the catalytically produced water (see col. 3, ll. 10-28 and ll. 65-68, col. 4, ll. 1-6 and ll. 16-21) and any unreacted hydrogen of the hydrogen supplied to the catalytic reactor (the second portion of hydrogen of the total amount of hydrogen fed in the ducts 8 that is NOT catalytically reacted); and
a combustor (the burner 3, see Figs. 1-3) including:
a combustion chamber (4) for combusting a fuel and air mixture (the mixture comprising the second portion of hydrogen and the second portion of compressed air; see Figs. 1-3 and col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 7, ll. 48-60, col. 10, ll. 13-23, and col. 9, l. 55 to col. 10, l. 8) generating combustion products (by flame 31 in Fig. 3); and
a diluent nozzle (the diluent nozzle marked in annotated Fig. 3) that is fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor (1) to receive the diluent (comprising the water contained in stream 30, see Figs. 2-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, l. 55 to col. 10, l. 8) from the catalytic reactor (1) and to inject the diluent (comprising the water contained in stream 30) into the combustion chamber (4) for cooling the combustion products in the combustion chamber (see col. 4, ll. 7-21); and
a fuel nozzle (the fuel nozzle marked in annotated Fig. 3) fluidly coupled to the hydrogen source to receive a hydrogen fuel (the second portion of hydrogen that is NOT catalytically reacted in unit 1 and is contained in stream 30, see Figs. 2-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, l. 55 to col. 10, l. 8) and to inject the hydrogen fuel into the combustion chamber (4) to generate the fuel and air mixture (the mixture comprising the second portion of hydrogen and the second portion of compressed air).
PNG
media_image1.png
805
1133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Carroni further teaches the reaction air (the first portion of compressed air fed in ducts 8 in Figs. 1-2, see col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65) further contains nitrogen (inherit) and the diluent comprises the nitrogen from the reaction air (col. 3, ll. 10-28).
Regarding claim 3, Carroni further teaches a compressor section (the compressor unit per col. 4, ll. 26-28, col. 8, ll. 57-61) including a plurality of compressor fan blades configured to compress air flowing therethrough and generate compressed air (inherit; because the compressor unit is a compressor of a gas turbine engine that provides the compressor air to the unit 1 integrated with a fuel injector, see abstract, Figs. 1-3, col. 2, ll. 40-45, col. 4, ll. 26-28, col. 8, ll. 57-61, and claim 13), wherein the reaction air is a portion of the compressed air (the first portion of compressed air fed in ducts 8 in Figs. 1-2 is a portion of the compressed air fed to the unit 1, see col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65).
Claims 1, 7-9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sisco 8225613.
Examiner Note: Due to the ambiguity of claim 1, it is interpreted that the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle is a second flow of hydrogen that is different from the hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor, wherein a diluent nozzle receives the diluent without receiving the hydrogen fuel and a fuel nozzle receives the hydrogen fuel without receiving the diluent.
Regarding claim 1, Sisco teaches the invention as claimed: A gas turbine engine (comprised 300 in Fig. 3 and col. 3, ll. 20-25) comprising:
a catalytic reactor (22 in Fig. 3) fluidly coupled to a hydrogen source (to provide a total gaseous hydrogen fuel to 300, see Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 9-12, and col. 4, ll. 10-16) to receive hydrogen (the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters catalytic reactor 22, see Fig. 3 and col. 4, ll. 19-25 and col. 5, ll. 48-54) and fluidly coupled to a reaction air source (a compressor of the gas turbine, see col. 4, ll. 19-25) to receive reaction air (the air enters 22 in Fig. 3 and catalytically combusted/reacted with the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters the 22, see col. 4, ll. 19-25 and col. 5, ll. 48-54) containing oxygen (inherited), wherein, when the catalytic reactor (22) receives the hydrogen and the reaction air (see Fig. 3), the catalytic reactor (22) catalytically reacts at least a portion of the oxygen in the reaction air (the oxygen contained in the air enters the 22) with at least a portion of the hydrogen (the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters 22) to produce catalytically produced water (inherit; the claimed produced water is contained in the high-temperature, oxygen-rich products, see col. 4, ll. 19-25 and col. 5, ll. 48-54) and to output a diluent (the diluent in annotated Fig. 3) that includes the catalytically produced water (said diluent is a mixture comprising the water exhausted from 22 and a dilution air provided by the dilution air passage, see annotated Fig. 3 and , col. 5, ll. 1-12, and col. 4, ll. 55-58) and any unreacted hydrogen of the hydrogen supplied to the catalytic reactor (the 22 is able to output an unreacted hydrogen of the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters 22 because a proportional amount of the liquid fuel and the hydrogen is controlled based on the altitude to produce an oxygen-rich gaseous fuel, see col. 4, ll. 59-65, col. 5, ll. 20-35 and ll. 50-55); and
a combustor (300 in Fig. 3) including:
a combustion chamber (comprising a main zone and the quench/dilution zone, see annotated Fig. 3) for combusting a fuel and air mixture (a mixture in the main zone in annotated Fig. 3, which is formed by at least one of a liquid fuel and the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters the main zone mixed with the air enters the main zone, see annotated Fig. 3 and from col. 3, l. 63 to col. 4, l. 5 and col. 4, ll. 59-65), generating combustion products (see Fig. 3); and
a diluent nozzle (the diluent nozzle in annotated Fig. 3) that is fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor (22) to receive the diluent (see annotated Fig. 3) from the catalytic reactor (22) and to inject the diluent into the combustion chamber (into the quench/dilution zone, see annotated Fig. 3) for cooling the combustion products in the combustion chamber (the dilution air part of the diluent cools the combustion products; it is noted that such cooling function is inherit for a quench/dilution zone located downstream from the main zone as shown in annotated Fig. 3); and
a fuel nozzle (the fuel nozzle in annotated Fig. 3) fluidly coupled to the hydrogen source to receive a hydrogen fuel (the gaseous hydrogen fuel that is injected into the main zone WITHOUT entering reactor 22, see Fig. 3) and to inject the hydrogen fuel into the combustion chamber (the main zone in annotated Fig. 3) to generate the fuel and air mixture (the mixture in the main zone in annotated Fig. 3, which is formed by at least at least one of the liquid fuel and the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters the main zone mixed with the air enters the main zone, see annotated Fig. 3 and from col. 3, l. 63 to col. 4, l. 5 and col. 4, ll. 59-65).
PNG
media_image2.png
752
1348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Sisco further teaches a hydrogen control valve (the hydrogen fuel flow diversion devices per col. 5, ll. 19-27 and col. 4, ll. 59-63) fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor (22 in Fig. 3) to control the amount of the hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor (by controlling the amount of the total gaseous hydrogen fuel provided to the combustor 300 in Fig. 3, see col. 5, ll. 19-27 and col. 4, ll. 59-63).
Regarding claim 8, Sisco further teaches a controller (said controller is required to perform the fuel transition using the hydrogen fuel flow diversion devices, see col. 5, ll. 19-27 and col. 4, ll. 59-63) operatively coupled to the hydrogen control valve (the hydrogen fuel flow diversion devices per col. 5, ll. 19-27 and col. 4, ll. 59-63) to operate the hydrogen control valve.
Regarding claim 9, Sisco further teaches the controller is configured to adjust the amount of the hydrogen received by the catalytic reactor (22, see col. 5, ll. 19-27 and col. 4, ll. 59-63, and Fig. 3) based on an operating condition of the gas turbine engine (altitude of the gas turbine engine, see col. 5, ll. 27-34).
Regarding claim 16, Sisco further teaches wherein the diluent nozzle is one diluent nozzle of a plurality of diluent nozzles (see annotated Fig. 3), and wherein the gas turbine engine further comprises a diluent manifold (the dilution air passage, see annotated Fig. 3) fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor (22) and the plurality of diluent nozzles (annotated Fig. 3) to distribute the diluent to each diluent nozzle of the plurality of diluent nozzles (see annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
759
1348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Sisco further teaches a vaporizer (the vaporizer for the gasification process per col. 4, ll. 10-16) in fluid communication with the hydrogen source to receive the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase (the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters the main zone in annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 is liquid before gasification process) from the hydrogen source, the vaporizer heating the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase to a gaseous phase (see col. 4, ll. 10-16), the catalytic reactor (22) being downstream of the vaporizer (see col. 4, ll. 10-16 and Fig. 3) to receive the hydrogen in the gaseous phase (the gaseous hydrogen fuel entered the reactor 22), and the fuel nozzle (see annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1) being downstream of the vaporizer to receive the hydrogen fuel in the gaseous phase (the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters the main zone in annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroni 7610761 in view of Kirzhner 20120102967.
Regarding claim 4, Carroni further teaches the reaction air is a portion of the compressed air (the first portion of compressed air fed in ducts 8 in Figs. 1-2 is a portion of the compressed air fed to the unit 1, see col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65) provided to the combustor (3).
Carroni does not teach an air control valve fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor to control the amount of reaction air received by the catalytic reactor.
However, Kirzhner teaches an air control valve (air delivery valves 4, see Fig. 2) fluidly coupled to a combustor (1) to control an amount of compressor air ( see [0016 and 0002]) received by the combustor (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Carroni with Kirzhner’s teach of controlling the amount of reaction air received by the combustor, such that
an air control valve fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor to control the amount of reaction air received by the catalytic reactor (the modification is to control the amount of air received by Carroni’s combustor as taught by Kirzhner, and thus, all of the structure/component that is required to perform the control function is inherently applied in said modification)
in order to prevent combustion instabilities, e.g., the risk of un-desired flame holding events, or reignitions, such as Flashback/Primary Re-Ignition, during transient operations of gas turbines by changing combustion characteristics and dynamics (Kirzhner, [0001]).
Regarding claim 5, Carroni in view of Kirzhner further teaches a controller (Kirzhner’s 9) operatively coupled to the air control valve (Kirzhner’s air control valve 4) to operate the air control valve (as taught by Kirzhner’s [0016, 0018 and 0002]).
The motivation of the modification of Carroni in view of Kirzhner is the same with the reason as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Carroni in view of Kirzhner further teaches wherein the controller (Kirzhner’s 9) is configured to adjust the amount of reaction air (because Carroni’s first portion of compressed air fed in Carroni’s ducts 8 in Carroni’s Figs. 1-2 is a portion of the compressed air provided to Carroni’s combustor 4, see Carroni’s col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65) received by the catalytic reactor (Carroni’s 1) based on an operating condition of the gas turbine engine (see Kirzhner’s [0018]).
The motivation of the modification of Carroni in view of Kirzhner is the same with the reason as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisco 8225613 in view of CARROTTE 20220099299.
Regarding claim 18, Sisco does not teach a hydrogen fuel tank for holding the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase.
However, CARROTTE teaches a hydrogen fuel tank (104) for holding a hydrogen fuel in a liquid phase ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Sisco with CARROTTE’s hydrogen fuel tank for holding the hydrogen fuel in a liquid phase because, it is noted that the use of a known prior art structure, in this case using of a hydrogen fuel tank as taught by CARROTTE, to obtain predictable results, in this case holding a liquid hydrogen fuel, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III(A).
Regarding claim 19, Sisco further teaches an aircraft (the gas turbine combustor 300 is used for an aircraft, see col. 4, ll. 46-49) comprising: a fuselage (inherit); a wing connected to the fuselage (inherit); and the gas turbine engine (comprising the gas turbine combustor 300).
Regarding claim 20, Sisco in view of CARROTTE further teaches wherein the hydrogen fuel tank (CARROTTE’s 104) is positioned at least partially within the fuselage (taught by Sisco’s aircraft and CARROTTE’s 102 in CARROTTE’s Fig. 1).
The motivation of the modification of Sisco in view of CARROTTE is the same with the reason as explained in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Sisco in view of CARROTTE as discussed so far does not teach wherein the vaporizer is positioned at least partially within at least one of the fuselage, the wing, or the gas turbine engine.
However, CARROTTE further teaches wherein a vaporizer (303) is positioned at least partially within at least one of the fuselage, the wing, or the gas turbine engine (as shown in Fig. 3, vaporizer 303 is upstream from the meter device 302 and the heater system 304, wherein the heater system 304 further including multiple heat exchanges positioned within the gas turbine engine 103 as shown in Figs. 4, 7-11. Thus, the vaporizer 303 is positioned at least partially within the fuselage 102, the wing, or the gas turbine engine 105) in order to heat the hydrogen fuel in the liquid phase to the gaseous phase ([0069-0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Sisco in view of CARROTTE with CARROTTE’s vaporizer positioned at least partially within at least one of the fuselage, the wing, or the gas turbine engine in order to raise the temperature of the hydrogen fuel to the required injection temperature even under conditions that the waste heat provided by the engine is not enough to heat the hydrogen fuel to the required injection temperature (CARROTTE, [0069-0070 and 0075]).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMATH 20160025339 in view of Carroni 7610761.
Examiner Note: Due to the ambiguity of claim 1, it is interpreted that the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle is the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor, and a mixture of the catalytically produced water and the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor is received by both of two nozzles.
Regarding claim 1, KAMATH teaches the invention as claimed: A gas turbine engine (as shown in Fig. 4) comprising:
a combustor (comprising chamber 90, see Figs. 4-5) including:
a combustion chamber (90) for combusting a fuel and air mixture, generating combustion products (the fuel and air mixture combusted in the combustor 90, wherein the fuel is at least one of the liquid hydrocarbon fuel and the gaseous fuel, see Fig. 4 and [0020 and 0038]); and
a dual-fuel nozzle (80) comprising a liquid fuel nozzle to inject a liquid fuel into the combustion chamber (because 80 is a duplex fuel nozzle for co-injecting two type of fuels, see [0038 and 0020]) and a gaseous fuel nozzle to inject a gaseous fuel into the combustion chamber (because 80 is a duplex fuel nozzle for co-injecting two type of fuels, see [0038 and 0020]).
KAMATH further teaches the gaseous fuel is natural gas ([0020]).
KAMATH does not teach said gas turbine engine comprising: a catalytic reactor fluidly coupled to a hydrogen source to receive hydrogen and fluidly coupled to a reaction air source to receive reaction air containing oxygen, wherein, when the catalytic reactor receives the hydrogen and the reaction air, the catalytic reactor catalytically reacts at least a portion of the oxygen in the reaction air with at least a portion of the hydrogen to produce catalytically produced water and to output a diluent that includes the catalytically produced water and any unreacted hydrogen of the hydrogen supplied to the catalytic reactor; and
said gaseous fuel nozzle of said dual-fuel nozzle comprising a diluent nozzle that is fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor to receive the diluent from the catalytic reactor and to inject the diluent into said combustion chamber for cooling said combustion products in said combustion chamber; and
said gaseous fuel nozzle of said dual-fuel nozzle comprising a fuel nozzle fluidly coupled to the hydrogen source to receive a hydrogen fuel and to inject the hydrogen fuel into the combustion chamber to generate the fuel and air mixture.
However, Carroni teaches a gas turbine engine (abstract) comprising:
a catalytic reactor (1 comprising catalyst material coating ducts 8s, see Figs. 1-3 and col. 7, ll. 38-44 and col. 8, ll. 22-36) fluidly coupled to a hydrogen source (to provide the total hydrogen to 1 via feed line 5 in Fig. 1 or feed line 17 via Fig. 2, see col. 7, ll. 28-30, col. 8, ll. 46-49, col. 3, ll. 42-48) to receive hydrogen (the total amount of hydrogen provided to ducts 8s of unit 1 that includes a first portion of hydrogen that catalytically reacts and forms water and a second portion of hydrogen that does NOT react and mixes with the formed water, see Figs. 1-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65) and fluidly coupled to a reaction air source (the compressor of the gas turbine engine, see Figs. 1-3 and col. 8, ll. 57-61) to receive reaction air (the first portion of compressed air fed in ducts 8 in Figs. 1-2, see col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, ll. 15-20 and ll. 53-65) containing oxygen (inherit), when the catalytic reactor (1) receives the hydrogen and the reaction air (see Figs. 1-3), the catalytic reactor (1) catalytically reacts at least a portion of the oxygen in the reaction air (the first portion of compressed air fed in ducts 8 in Figs. 1-2) with at least a portion of the hydrogen (the first portion of hydrogen of the total amount of hydrogen fed in the ducts 8, see col. 3, ll. 10-28 and col. 9, ll. 15-20) to produce catalytically produced water and to output a diluent that includes the catalytically produced water (see col. 3, ll. 10-28 and ll. 65-68, col. 4, ll. 1-6 and ll. 16-21) and any unreacted hydrogen of the hydrogen supplied to the catalytic reactor (the second portion of hydrogen of the total amount of hydrogen fed in the ducts 8 that is NOT catalytically reacted); and
a dual-fuel nozzle (liquid fuel provided by duct 28 and the partly catalyzed hydrogen/air mixture provided by duct 29 downstream from unit 1, see Figs. 2-3 and col. 9, ll. 48-65) integrated with the catalytic reactor (unit 1, see Figs. 1-3) comprising: a plurality of nozzles (at least two for two streams 30s in Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of nozzles including:
a diluent nozzle (the diluent nozzle marked in annotated Fig. 3) that is fluidly coupled to the catalytic reactor (1) to receive the diluent (comprising the water contained in stream 30, see Figs. 2-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, l. 55 to col. 10, l. 8) from the catalytic reactor (1) and to inject the diluent (comprising the water contained in stream 30) into the combustion chamber (4) for cooling the combustion products in the combustion chamber (see col. 4, ll. 7-21); and
a fuel nozzle (the fuel nozzle marked in annotated Fig. 3) fluidly coupled to the hydrogen source to receive a hydrogen fuel (the second portion of hydrogen that is NOT catalytically reacted in unit 1 and is contained in stream 30, see Figs. 2-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 9, l. 55 to col. 10, l. 8) and to inject the hydrogen fuel into the combustion chamber (4) to generate the fuel and air mixture (the mixture comprising unreacted hydrogen from catalytic reactor 1 and the second portion of compressed air).
Carroni further teaches it is desired to use pure hydrogen instead of natural gas as fuel in order to reduce greenhouse emission (col. 1, ll. 20-35 and col. 2, ll. 12-23), and integrating the catalytic reactor (unit 1) into the dual-fuel nozzle to partly catalyze the purge hydrogen fuel in order to avoid premature ignition of the purge hydrogen and reduce NOx emission (col. 2, ll. 23-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify KAMATH with Carroni’s
i) replacing natural gas with pure hydrogen as gaseous fuel in order to reduce greenhouse emission (Carroni, col. 1, ll. 20-35 and col. 2, ll. 12-23);
ii) integrating a catalytic reactor within the dual-fuel nozzle to partly catalyze the hydrogen fuel in order to avoid premature ignition of the purge hydrogen and reduce NOx emission (Carroni, col. 2, ll. 23-35).
Regarding claim 10, KAMATH in view of Carroni further teaches a fan section including a fan (KAMATH’s 103) having a plurality of fan blades (inherit by KAMATH’s 103) rotatable to accelerate air (KAMATH’s 109, see KAMATH’s Fig. 4);
a bypass airflow passage (where KAMATH’s 107 is) defined downstream of the fan section (KAMATH’s 103) to receive a first portion of the air accelerated by the fan section as bypass air (KAMATH’s 107, see KAMATH’s Fig. 4);
a core air flowpath (where KAMATH’s 104, 105, 90, 155, and 157 are) defined downstream of the fan section (KAMATH’s 103) to receive a second portion of the air accelerated by the fan section as core air (the air enters KAMATH’s core air flowpath at KAMATH’s inlet of 104, see KAMATH’s Fig. 4), the combustor (KAMATH’s 90) defining a first portion of the core air flowpath (see KAMATH’s Fig. 4) and receiving at least a portion of the core air as primary air (Carroni’s portion of the compressed air enters ducts 9 of Carroni’s unit 1 that is NOT catalytically reacted and the compressed air received by Carroni’s unit 1 is a core air provided by the engine compressor, see Carroni’s Figs. 1-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 7, ll. 48-60) to generate the fuel and air mixture (KAMATH’s at least one of the liquid hydrocarbon fuel and the gaseous fuel as taught by KAMATH’s [0020 and 0038] mixed with Carroni’s portion of the compressed air enters ducts 9 of Carroni’s unit 1 that is NOT catalytically reacted as taught by Carroni’s Figs. 1-3, col. 3, ll. 10-28, col. 7, ll. 48-60); and
a reaction air flowpath (Carroni’s supply line 21 in Carroni’s Fig. 2) including a port (an inlet port of Carroni’s line 21) positioned to draw the reaction air (Carroni’s first portion of the compressed air enters ducts 8 of Carroni’s unit 1 that is catalytically reacted with the first portion of the hydrogen fed into the ducts 8s and the compressed air received by Carroni’s unit 1 is the core air provided by the engine compressor, see Carroni’s Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 10-28 and col 9, ll. 15-20) from the core air flowpath (at the inlet of KAMATH’s combustor 90 because Carroni’s unit 1 is placed at the inlet of combustor, see Carroni’s Figs. 1-3 and col. 8, ll. 57-62).
The motivation of the modification of KAMATH in view of Carroni is the same with the reason as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMATH 20160025339 in view of Carroni 7610761, and in further view of Widener 20130192249 and Mackin 20190309683.
Regarding claim 11, KAMATH in view of Carroni does not teach wherein the port of the reaction air flowpath is positioned to draw the reaction air from the core air flowpath or from a different source.
However, Widener teaches the port of the reaction air flowpath (configured to provide the air flow to reformer 32 at inlet 114, see Fig. 2) is positioned to draw the reaction air from the core air flowpath or from a different air source (per [0016-0017], the inlet 114 is in fluid communication with the compressor 12 or a different source in order to provide the air flow to the reformer 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide KAMATH in view of Carroni with Widener’s positioning the port to draw the reaction air from the core air flowpath or from a different source in order to provide the reaction air to the catalytic reactor from a selected source (Widener, [016-0017]).
KAMATH in view of Carroni and Widener does not teach the port is positioned to draw a portion of said bypass air from said bypass airflow passage as said reaction air.
However, Mackin teaches a port (annotated Fig. 2) of a supply air flowpath (annotated Fig. 2) is positioned to draw a portion of the bypass air (via fan bleed air flowpath 270, see Fig. 2 and [0037]) from the bypass airflow passage (204) and to draw a portion of the core air (via core bleed air flowpath 254, see Fig. 2 and [0035]) from the core air flowpath (where HPC 214 is, see Fig. 2) to form a supply air (the mixed bleed air, see [0034 and 0002]).
PNG
media_image4.png
692
924
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide KAMATH in view of Carroni and Widener with Mackin’s port positioned to draw a portion of the bypass air from the bypass airflow passage as the reaction air in order to provide a mixed bleed air satisfying a pressure and/or temperature demands of a customer device (Mackin, [0034 and 0002]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMATH 20160025339 in view of Carroni 7610761 , and in further view of Mackin 20190309683.
Regarding claim 12, KAMATH in view of Carroni further teaches a compressor section (KAMATH’s 104 and 105) defining a second portion of the core air flowpath (see KAMATH’s Fig. 4), the compressor section including a plurality of compressor fan blades configured to compress the core air flowing therethrough and generate compressed core air (inherited by KAMATH’s 104 and 105 in Fig. 4), wherein the port (the inlet port of Carroni’s line 21 in Carroni’s Fig. 2) is configured to draw a portion of the compressed core air from the core air flowpath as the reaction air (because the air provided to Carroni’s unit 1 via Carroni’s line 21 is a portion of the compressor air as taught by Carroni’s Figs. 1-3 and col 8, ll. 57-62).
The motivation of the modification of KAMATH in view of Carroni is the same with the reason as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.
KAMATH in view of Carroni does not teach wherein said port is positioned in said compressor section to draw said portion of the compressed air from said core air flowpath as said reaction air.
However, Mackin teaches wherein the port (252, see Fig. 2 and [0035]) is selectively positioned in the compressor section (where HPC 214 is, see Fig. 2) to draw a portion of the compressed core air from the core air flowpath as a supply air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide KAMATH in view of Carroni with Mackin’s selectively positioning the port in the compressor section in order to draw a bleed core air satisfying a pressure and/or temperature demands of a customer device (Mackin, [0035]).
Regarding claim 13, KAMATH in view of Carroni and Mackin further teaches the compressor section includes a low-pressure compressor (KAMATH’s 104) and a high-pressure compressor (KAMATH’s 105) positioned downstream of the low-pressure compressor (KAMATH’s 104) relative to a flow direction of the compressed core air in the core air flowpath (see KAMATH’s Fig. 4), the port (Mackin’s 252 in Mackin Fig. 2) being positioned between the low-pressure compressor (KAMATH’s 104 in KAMATH’s Fig. 4 and Mackin’s 212 in Mackin’s Fig. 2) and the high-pressure compressor (KAMATH’s 105 in KAMATH’s Fig. 4 and Mackin’s 214 in Mackin’s Fig. 2) to draw the reaction air (Carroni’s first portion of the compressed air enters ducts 8 of Carroni’s unit 1 that is catalytically reacted with the first portion of the hydrogen fed into the ducts 8s as taught by Carroni’s Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 10-28 and col 9, ll. 15-20) from the core air flowpath (where KAMATH’s 104 and 105 are in KAMATH’s Fig. 4).
The motivation of the modification of KAMATH in view of Carroni and Mackin are the same with the reason as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and the reason as explained in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the 102 rejection for claim 1 as being anticipated by Carroni, Applicant’s argument (p. 8) is not persuasive because: i) Carroni teaches the catalytic reactor 1 comprising storage volume 25, wherein the partially catalyzed hydrogen and air mixture exhausted from ducts 8s enters the storage volume 25 (col. 9, ll. 25-32 and Fig. 2), the partially catalyzed hydrogen and air mixture exits the storage volume 25 via central outflow duct 29 (see Fig. 3 and col. 9, ll. 40-48 and 59-65) and is injected into the combustion chamber 4 via two nozzles as two separated streams 30s (see Fig. 3 and col. 9, ll. 40-48 and 59-65), and the two separated streams 30s is part of the partially catalyzed hydrogen and air mixture exhausted from ducts 8s via the storage volume 25 that contains a) the water produced by the catalytic reaction of the hydrogen and oxygen of the air in ducts 8s, i.e., the claimed diluent, and b) the unreacted hydrogen exhausted from ducts 8s, i.e., the claimed hydrogen fuel (col. 9, ll. 15-20); and
ii) due to the ambiguities of claim 1 related to the fluid relationship between the hydrogen source, the catalytic reactor, the diluent nozzle, and the fuel nozzle, under the interpretation that the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel nozzle is the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor, and a mixture of the catalytically produced water and the unreacted hydrogen output from the catalytic reactor is received by both of two nozzles including a diluent nozzle that receives both of the catalytically produced water as diluent and the unreacted hydrogen and a fuel nozzle that receives both of the catalytically produced water and the unreacted hydrogen as fuel, Carroni teaches a diluent nozzle and a fuel nozzle as claimed, also see details in the rejection.
Regarding the 102 rejection for claim 1 as being anticipated by Sisco, Applicant’s argument (p. 8) is not persuasive because: i) claim 1 only requires the claimed catalytic reactor is able to output any unreacted hydrogen of hydrogen; and ii) Sisco teaches the catalytic reactor 22 is able to output an unreacted hydrogen of the gaseous hydrogen fuel enters 22 because a proportional amount of the liquid fuel and the hydrogen is controlled based on the altitude to produce an oxygen-rich gaseous fuel (col. 4, ll. 59-65, col. 5, ll. 20-35 and ll. 50-55).
Examiner Note
Applicant is suggested to clarify the fluid relationship between the hydrogen source, the catalytic reactor, the diluent nozzle, and the fuel nozzle (catalytic reactor and fuel nozzle are fluidly in series or fluidly parallel to each other) in order to clearly define which flow of hydrogen is catalytically reacted in the claimed reactor, which flow of hydrogen is the claimed hydrogen fuel provided to the claimed fuel nozzle, and what fluid is the claimed diluent that provided to the claimed diluent nozzle.
Moreover, Applicant may further define the location of the claimed catalytic reactor (note: the catalytic reactors as taught by Carroni and Sisco are located within the combustion section) and/or the location of the claimed diluent nozzle (note: Sisco’s diluent nozzle is located on the liner not at inlet of the combustor).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741