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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 2, 8, 3, 1 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,068. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent “anticipate” the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims.
Examiner notes that the parent application had a restriction requirement between the apparatus and method mailed 9/1/2023. However, applicant amended the apparatus claims to include the controller language and cancelled the method claims in the amendment filed 3/7/2024. A restriction would not be appropriate between the apparatus claims including the controller language as filed on 3/7/2024 and the method claims had they remained uncancelled.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Jorgensen et al. (US 2017/0003032).
Regarding claim 1, Jorgensen discloses a method of operating a combustor (Figure 1, 100) for a turbine engine (abstract), the method comprising:
operating a pilot mixer (190 and flow passage 162) and a main mixer (113) of a mixer assembly (150 inclusive of 113) of the combustor during a high power operation (Annotated figure 15) of the turbine engine (Annotated figure 15 shows the pilot fuel flow and main fuel flows during high power operation);
injecting a fluid (paragraph 47 describes water) into the combustor during the high power operation (Annotated figure 15 shows the main water 2 flows during high power operation); and
shutting off the fluid during a low power operation (Annotated figure 15) of the turbine engine and during a mid-level power operation (Annotated figure 15) of the turbine engine (Figure 15 shows the main water 2 flow does not during the low power or the lower portion of the mid-level power operation, i.e. the valves etc. are shut off during this period).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jorgensen discloses wherein operating the pilot mixer includes generating a pilot flame (via igniter described in paragraph 50) with a rich fuel-air mixture (paragraph 77) and operating the main mixer includes generating a main flame with a lean fuel-air mixture (paragraph 77 describes adjusting the ratio of fuel fed to the main fuel injectors and figure 15 shows the Main 2 Fuel Flow as low while the Pilot Fuel Flow is much higher as the Main 2 Fuel Flow starts in the mid phase, i.e. the Main 2 Fuel Flow has a low fuel to air ratio).
Regarding claim 3, Jorgensen discloses further comprising shutting off the main mixer and operating only the pilot mixer during the low power operation of the turbine engine (Annotated figure 15 shows the main 1 fuel flow is shut off during the lower portion of the low power operation and main 2 fuel flow is shut off for the entirety of the low power operation while pilot fuel flow continues in the low power operation).
Regarding claim 4, Jorgensen discloses further comprising controlling a fuel split between the pilot mixer and the main mixer during the high power operation (paragraph 67 describes fuel split at higher loads, i.e. high power operation) while the fluid is injected into the combustor to maintain operating conditions of combustion gases at predetermined operating conditions (paragraph 77 describes adjusting the fuel split to create a uniform or configured combustor exit temperature profile, i.e. a predetermined operating conditions).
Regarding claim 8, Jorgensen discloses further comprising operating the pilot mixer and the main mixer during the mid-level power operation of the turbine engine (Annotated figure 15 shows both pilot and main 2 fuel is flowing into the combustor during mid-level power operation, i.e. both the pilot and main mixers are operating during the mid-level power operation).
Regarding claim 9, Jorgensen discloses further comprising injecting the fluid upstream of the combustor (paragraph 47 describes providing a fuel/water emulsion through fuel cartridge assembly 150, i.e. the fluid (water) is injected into the fuel and then the fuel cartridge, i.e. mixer assembly, upstream of the combustor with respect to the fuel flow).
Regarding claim 10, Jorgensen discloses further comprising injecting the fluid upstream of an annular dome of the combustor (Figure 1 shows the combustor has an annular dome formed at the upstream end of the combustor 110 and paragraph 47 describes providing a fuel/water emulsion through fuel cartridge assembly 150, i.e. the fluid (water) is injected into the fuel and then the fuel cartridge, i.e. mixer assembly, upstream of the combustor with respect to the fuel flow).
Regarding claim 11, Jorgensen discloses further comprising injecting the fluid into the mixer assembly (paragraph 47 describes providing a fuel/water emulsion through fuel cartridge assembly 150, i.e. the fluid (water) is injected into the fuel and then the fuel cartridge, i.e. mixer assembly).
Regarding claim 12, Jorgensen discloses further comprising injecting the fluid into swirler passages of the mixer assembly (paragraph 68 describes injecting the fluid as a fuel/water mixture and paragraph 70 describes injecting that mixture in the radial inflow swirler 140 of mixer assembly 150).
Regarding claim 13, Jorgensen discloses further comprising injecting the fluid into the combustor by a fluid injector (paragraph 47 describes water circuits for injecting water into the combustor).
Regarding claim 14, Jorgensen discloses the fluid injector comprising at least one of a spray bar or a manifold for injecting the fluid (paragraph 48 describes injecting the water through a manifold).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen et al. (US 2017/0003032)in view of Motter et al. (US 2007/0089425).
Regarding claim 5, Jorgensen in discloses all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except further comprising controlling a compressed air split between the pilot mixer and the main mixer based on the operating conditions of the combustion gases.
Motter teaches further comprising controlling a compressed air split and the main mixer based on the operating conditions of the combustion gases (Figure 5, step 508 describes controller fuel to air ratio based on the NOx emissions and paragraph 31 describes adjusting the concentration distribution of premixed air and fuel, i.e. adjusting the air split).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorgensen’s invention to include further comprising controlling a compressed air split between the pilot mixer and the main mixer (in the system of Jorgensen in view of Motter, the control of air split described by Motter would be effected in the pilot and main mixers of Jorgensen) based on the operating conditions of the combustion gases in order to automatically adjust for condition changes as suggested and taught by Motter in paragraph 18.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen et al. (US 2017/0003032)in view of Razak (US 2015/0292402).
Regarding claim 6, Jorgensen in discloses all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except further comprising determining whether the turbine engine is operating at the high power operation based on operating conditions of compressed air entering the mixer assembly.
Razak teaches further comprising determining whether the turbine engine is operating at the high power operation based on operating conditions of compressed air entering the mixer assembly (paragraph 62 describes determining that the engine is operated in a high thrust mode, i.e. high power mode, when the thrust is greater than a predetermined minimum, and the thrust value is an operating condition of the compressed air entering the mixer assembly).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorgensen’s invention to include further comprising determining whether the turbine engine is operating at the high power operation based on operating conditions of compressed air entering the mixer assembly in order to operate the engine efficiently while reducing emissions as suggested and taught by Razak in paragraphs 5-7.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen et al. (US 2017/0003032) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0363556).
Regarding claim 7, Jorgensen discloses all the essential features of the claimed invention except wherein injecting the fluid into the combustor comprises pumping the fluid from a fluid supply into the combustor.
Kim teaches wherein injecting the fluid into the combustor comprises pumping (via pump 51 on line 52) the fluid from a fluid supply (Figure 2, 50) into the combustor (Figure 2 shows the pump is on the line 52 which supplies the water from water supply 40 to the combustor and control valve 49 is operated to control the fluid flow through line 52 and the pump 51).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorgensen’s invention to include wherein injecting the fluid into the combustor comprises pumping the fluid from a fluid supply into the combustor in order to control the amount of water provided to the combustor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to anticipate and/or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the particular method steps as described in claim 15. Claims dependent thereon inherit the allowable subject matter of the respective base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights