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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18996404 filed 1/17/2025. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “a first shaft connected to a rotating shaft of the compressor” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - a first shaft connected to the compressor - -. Note that the high-pressure turbine and compressor are connected via a single shaft, not via two different shafts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a reference line acquisition unit…” (claim 2), “an exhaust temperature acquisition unit…” (claim 2), “a first parameter acquisition unit…” (claim 2), “a suction heating control unit…” (claim 2), “a target temperature acquisition unit…” (claim 3), “a feedback control unit…” (claim 3), “a gain coefficient setting unit…” (claim 4), “a first heating unit…” (claim 6), “a temperature adjustment line acquisition unit…” (claim 7), “a parameter acquisition unit…” (claim 9), and “a suction heating control unit…” (claim 9).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2 & 9, the recitations “a suction heating control unit” (3rd to last line in each respective claim) are vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same as the control device recited in claim 1 (which is also configured to control the suction heating unit), whether it’s a component of the control device recited in claim 1, or whether it is wholly distinct from the control device recited in claim 1.
Dependent Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardiner 20120317988.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Gardiner teaches an operation method (see Title) for a suction heating system (Fig. 1, as follows) that is configured to heat outside air (130) sent to a compressor (120) of a gas turbine (120/135/145), the suction heating system including a suction heating unit (155) that is configured to heat the outside air using a heat source different from compressed air discharged from the compressor (feedwater from HRSG 110 via line 160; para. [0042]), the operation method comprising:
a control step of controlling the suction heating unit based on a correlation parameter correlated with a turbine inlet temperature of the gas turbine or on an estimated value of the turbine inlet temperature (operation of 155 controlled via adjustment of valve 157 to set degree of inlet air heating based on load, which is a parameter correlated with the turbine inlet temperature – i.e. higher load is correlated with higher turbine inlet temperatures while lower load is correlated with lower turbine inlet temperatures; paras. [0017] & [0025]).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10-13, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardiner in view of Feher 20220178303.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Gardiner teaches a suction heating system (Fig. 1) that is configured to heat outside air (130) sent to a compressor (120) of a gas turbine (120/135/145), the suction heating system comprising:
a suction heating unit (155) that is configured to heat the outside air using a heat source different from compressed air discharged from the compressor (feedwater from HRSG 110 via line 160; para. [0042]); and
controlling the suction heating unit based on a correlation parameter correlated with a turbine inlet temperature of the gas turbine or on an estimated value of the turbine inlet temperature (controlled based on load, which is a parameter correlated with turbine inlet temperature; paras. [0017] & [0025]).
Gardiner implies a control device (while the combined cycle system in Gardiner could theoretically include manual operation of valves and the like, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a control device is likely implemented for automated control of the plant) but fails to expressly teach it.
Feher teaches a combined cycle power plant (Fig. 1) with an inlet heat exchanger (52) and a control device configured to control operation of the inlet heat exchanger (controller 88; para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gardiner’s suction heating system to include a control device configured to control the suction heating unit based on the correlation parameter correlated with the turbine inlet temperature of the gas turbine or on an estimated value of the turbine inlet temperature, as taught by Feher, in order to automatically control operation of the suction heating unit (Feher; paras. [0032] & [0035]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Gardiner in view of Feher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Gardiner further teaches the suction heating unit includes a heating medium flow channel (160) that guides a heating medium, which is generated by heating steam generator feed water with a heat recovery steam generator that is supplied with combustion gas from the gas turbine (160 guides heated feed water from HRSG 110 to 155; para. [0042]), to a suction flow channel communicating with the compressor (engine intake in which heat exchanger 155 is positioned to heat intake air 130).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Gardiner in view of Feher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 10, and Gardiner further teaches the suction heating unit further includes a pipe portion that is disposed on an inner side of the suction flow channel and that is configured to be supplied with the heating medium from the heating medium flow channel (160 supplies heating medium to pipe portion within 155 in the intake housing for intake air 130).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Gardiner in view of Feher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 10, and Gardiner further teaches the suction heating unit further includes a flow rate adjustment valve (157) provided in the heating medium flow channel, and the control device is configured to control the flow rate adjustment valve (as discussed for the modification of Gardiner with Feher in claim 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Gardiner in view of Feher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 10, and Gardiner further teaches the heating medium flow channel is configured to guide, as the heating medium, warm water generated in the heat recovery steam generator to the suction flow channel (warm water from HRSG 110 is guided via 160 to the suction flow channel for intake air 130; para. [0042]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Gardiner further teaches a gas turbine system (Fig. 1, 120/135/145/125/170) comprising: the suction heating system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and the gas turbine (120/135/145).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardiner in view of Feher, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yusuke JP 2012002126 (original copy and English translation attached) and further in view of Kasuga 20120047870.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Gardiner in view of Feher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Gardiner in view of Feher teaches, as discussed for claim 1 above, a suction heating control unit that controls the suction heating unit (control device discussed in rejection of claim 1 above).
Gardiner in view of Feher fails to expressly teach the control device includes a parameter acquisition unit that acquires a flow rate of fuel supplied to a combustor of the gas turbine, a calorific value per unit weight of the fuel, a flow rate of supply air supplied to the combustor, and a temperature of the supply air, an estimated turbine inlet temperature acquisition unit that acquires the estimated value of the turbine inlet temperature using a physical model expression related to a thermal energy balance of the combustor of the gas turbine, based on the acquired flow rate of the fuel, the acquired calorific value of the fuel, the acquired flow rate of the supply air, and the acquired temperature of the supply air, and the suction heating control unit that controls the suction heating unit such that the acquired estimated value matches a target turbine inlet temperature that is lower than an allowable upper limit value of the turbine inlet temperature by a prescribed temperature.
Yusuki teaches a control device (Fig. 6, 14/16) which includes a parameter acquisition unit that acquires a flow rate of fuel supplied to a combustor of the gas turbine (p. 7, 4th paragraph of translation, Gf), a calorific value per unit weight of the fuel (p. 7, 4th paragraph of translation, Hf), a flow rate of supply air supplied to the combustor (p. 7, 4th paragraph of translation, G3), and a temperature of the supply air (p. 7, 4th paragraph of translation, T3), an estimated turbine inlet temperature acquisition unit that acquires the estimated value of the turbine inlet temperature using a physical model expression related to a thermal energy balance of the combustor of the gas turbine, based on the acquired flow rate of the fuel, the acquired calorific value of the fuel, the acquired flow rate of the supply air, and the acquired temperature of the supply air (inlet temperature estimating unit 62 derives turbine inlet temperature TIT using each of the recited values discussed above via a physical model; p. 7 4th paragraph of translation).
Kasuga teaches there is a maximum allowable temperature to the inlet of the turbine from the viewpoint of durability (para. [0026]). Kasuga further teaches cooling engine intake air by injecting ammonia (Fig. 2, via ammonia feed device 61), which permits more fuel to be burned while maintaining the maximum allowable turbine inlet temperature (para. [0026]). Inherently, this also means that if the fuel rate is constant while the intake air is cooled, the turbine inlet temperature will be reduced. Thus, also, if the fuel rate is constant while the intake air is heated, the turbine inlet temperature will be increased.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gardiner in view of Feher’s suction heating system such that the control device includes a parameter acquisition unit that acquires a flow rate of fuel supplied to a combustor of the gas turbine, a calorific value per unit weight of the fuel, a flow rate of supply air supplied to the combustor, and a temperature of the supply air, an estimated turbine inlet temperature acquisition unit that acquires the estimated value of the turbine inlet temperature using a physical model expression related to a thermal energy balance of the combustor of the gas turbine, based on the acquired flow rate of the fuel, the acquired calorific value of the fuel, the acquired flow rate of the supply air, and the acquired temperature of the supply air, as taught by Yusuki, and the suction heating control unit that controls the suction heating unit such that the acquired estimated value matches a target turbine inlet temperature that is lower than an allowable upper limit value of the turbine inlet temperature by a prescribed temperature, as taught by Kasuga, in order to estimate the turbine inlet temperature (Yusuki, translation p. 7, 4th paragraph) and control the system to keep the turbine inlet temperature at or below the allowable upper limit value (Kasuga; para. [0026]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardiner in view of Feher, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Heyden 20180216466.
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Gardiner in view of Feher teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 15, but fails to teach the gas turbine is a two-shaft gas turbine including the compressor, a high-pressure turbine that has a first shaft connected to a rotating shaft of the compressor, and a low-pressure turbine that has a second shaft different from the first shaft and that is configured to be supplied with the combustion gas from the high-pressure turbine.
Heyden teaches an industrial gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) which is a two-shaft gas turbine including the compressor (12B), a high-pressure turbine (12D) that has a first shaft connected to a rotating shaft of the compressor (para. [0020]), and a low-pressure turbine (12E) that has a second shaft different from the first shaft (para. [0020]) and that is configured to be supplied with the combustion gas from the high-pressure turbine (para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gardiner in view of Feher’s suction heating system such that the gas turbine is a two-shaft gas turbine including the compressor, a high-pressure turbine that has a first shaft connected to a rotating shaft of the compressor, and a low-pressure turbine that has a second shaft different from the first shaft and that is configured to be supplied with the combustion gas from the high-pressure turbine, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Gardiner in view of Feher’s single shaft gas turbine versus the claimed two-shaft gas turbine taught by Heyden), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both Gardiner in view of Feher’s single shaft gas turbine and the claimed two-shaft gas turbine taught by Heyden were known architectures for industrial gas turbines), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Gardiner in view of Feher’s single shaft gas turbine or Heyden’s two-shaft gas turbine could have been used to predictably provide a gas turbine engine for industrial power production). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the suction heating control unit controls the suction heating unit such that an operation point, which is determined from the actual exhaust temperature and the actual first parameter, matches the reference line.
While the prior art discussed in the claim rejections above does not mention turbine expansion ratios, operating parameters of the gas turbines (such as load) are inherently correlated with the turbine expansion ratio to some degree. The prior art fails to teach controlling the suction heating unit based on an actual parameter correlated with the expansion ratio in combination with the actual exhaust temperature with respect to a reference line as defined in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights