DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/21/2026 are acceptable and have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
change claim 1 line 14 accordingly: “the plurality of primary dilution openings”
change claim 1 line 18 accordingly: “edge of the at least one primary dilution opening”
change claim 1 line 20 accordingly: “edge of the at least one primary dilution opening”
change claim 1 line 22 accordingly: “of the at least one primary dilution opening”
change claim 1 lines 22-23 accordingly: “of the at least one primary dilution opening”
change claim 5 line 1 accordingly: “wherein [[the]] at least one”
change claim 5 line 3 accordingly: “of the at least one primary dilution opening”
change claim 5 lines 4-5 accordingly: “of the at least one primary dilution opening” change claim 16 lines 1-2 accordingly: “the plurality of primary dilution openings”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 2, 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 2011/0048024 A1 (Snyder) in view of NPL Locally Thickened CMC Combustor Liner (Anonymous, i.e. see Disclosed Without Attribution on page 1; referred to as “Anon” below) as evidenced by Pub. No.: US 2019/0249874 A1 (Gandikota) and Pub. No.: US 2016/0040879 A1 (Dierberger).
Regarding claim 1, Snyder discloses (see figs. 1-3 and 6) a combustor 10 for a gas turbine 2, the combustor 10 comprising: an outer casing 20 and an inner casing 18, each extending circumferentially (see that pressure vessel 24 is annular; see par. 29, top) about a combustor centerline axis 50; an outer liner 34 extending circumferentially (see figs. 2-3) about the combustor centerline axis 50; and an inner liner 32 extending circumferentially (see figs. 2-3) about the combustor centerline axis 50, a combustion chamber 30 being defined between the outer liner 34 and the inner liner 32, an outer flow passage 92 (cooing air flows therein; see par. 33, middle) being defined between the outer casing 20 and the outer liner 34, and an inner flow passage 90 (cooing air flows therein; see par. 33, middle) being defined between the inner casing 18 and the inner liner 32, wherein at least one of the outer liner (see fig. 2) or the inner liner (see fig. 2) includes (a) a plurality of primary dilution openings 116 extending therethrough to provide a flow of primary dilution air (see par. 32, top) into the combustion chamber , and (b) a plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings 120 extending therethrough to provide a flow of secondary dilution air (see par. 40, middle) into the combustion chamber 30, respective ones of the plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings 120 being arranged adjacent to respective ones of the plurality of primary dilution openings 116 to provide the flow of the secondary dilution air to suppress a wake (see discussion of wake formed by dilution holes 116; see par. 39, top; the instant wakes form hot spots as pointed out in par. 11 and par. 39 top; the instant hot spots increase harmful NOX emissions, see par. 39, bottom, and the secondary dilution air from the secondary dilution openings 120 quenches or cools these hot spots, see par. 10, top and par. 40, top, and thereby suppressing the high temperature hot spots and increased emissions resulting from the instant wakes formed by the primary dilution air from the primary dilution openings 116; also see pertinent prior art section infra discussing formation of wakes that represents knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art) formed in the flow of the primary dilution air at a downstream side (the wakes are formed on the downstream side; see par. 39, top) of the primary dilution openings 116. Snyder does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of primary dilution openings includes a wake flow suppressor arranged on a downstream edge of the at least one primary dilution opening, and extending into the combustion chamber, and an upstream side of the wake flow suppressor includes a concave surface extending into the combustion chamber from the downstream edge of the at least one primary dilution opening, the concave surface extending in a circumferential direction about a centerline axis through a center of the at least one primary dilution opening, and extending parallel to the centerline axis of the at least one primary dilution opening.
Anon teaches a gas turbine (see page 2, top) and further teaches a dilution opening (see figs. 3a and 3b and page 6, top) includes a wake flow suppressor (see annotated figures below) arranged on a downstream edge (see annotated figures below) of the dilution opening, and extending (see annotated figure below), and an upstream side of the wake flow suppressor includes a concave surface (see annotated figure below) extending (see annotated figure below) from the downstream edge (see annotated figure below) of the dilution opening, the concave surface extending in a circumferential direction (see curved annotated arrow below) about a centerline axis (see annotated figures below) through a center (location of centerline axis) of the dilution opening, and extending parallel (see annotated figures below) to the centerline axis of the dilution opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Snyder with wherein at least one of the plurality of primary dilution openings includes a wake flow suppressor arranged on a downstream edge of the at least one primary dilution opening, and extending, and an upstream side of the wake flow suppressor includes a concave surface extending from the downstream edge of the at least one primary dilution opening, the concave surface extending in a circumferential direction about a centerline axis through a center of the at least one primary dilution opening, and extending parallel to the centerline axis of the at least one primary dilution opening as taught by Anon in order to facilitate reducing thermal and mechanical stress at the region of dilution hole(s) (see Anon p. 5, top).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (concave surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (wake flow suppressor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (centerline axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc]
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
157
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (concave surface)][AltContent: textbox (downstream side and edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“extending”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (wake would be formed here if not for the wake flow suppressor )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (cross-section)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
619
453
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (downstream edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (combustion chamber)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (cold side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (hot side)][AltContent: arrow]
It is noted that Anon does not explicitly teach that the wake flow suppressor extends into the combustion chamber and the concave surface extends into the combustion chamber (see annotated figures above). However it is thought that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand such extensions to be into the combustion chamber because the thickened material forming the suppressor is intended to reduce thermal stress and such thermal stress and “hot spots” (see page 4, top and page 5, top) caused by the hot side (see annotated figures above) of the combustor liner. In addition the extensions being into the combustion chamber permits more cooling air (see page 6, top and middle) to contact the hot side at the concave surface annotation above.
However in the scenario one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand this it is noted that the wake flow suppressor and concave surface of the wake flow suppressor may only extend into the combustion chamber or alternatively extend outward away from the cold side (see annotated figure above) and it would have been obvious to try for wake flow suppressor extend into the combustion chamber and the concave surface to extend into the combustion chamber because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (MPEP 2143 I.E.). This is evidenced by Gandikota that points out in par. 86 that similar wake flow suppressors (see ring shaped wake flow suppressor 60 surrounding dilution hole 48 in fig. 14 may extend into the combustion chamber 20 (see figs. 1-2) or may extend outward from the cold side (side 52 in fig.13 may be the hot side or the cold side as pointed out at par. 86, bottom). Gandikota also points out in par. 56 that gas turbine combustors are formed from ceramic materials regarding Anon page 1 discussion. This is also evidenced by Dierberger par. 47 wherein Dierberger also points out that wake flow suppressor “thickened” (see par. 36) portions 120 may extend from the hot side 112 (see fig. 10), Dierberger using the “thickened” terminology similar to Anon’s title.
It is noted that thickened portion of Anon referred to above may be considered a wake flow suppressor because it reduces a wake formed at a downstream side or edge (see annotated figures above) of the dilution hole that would otherwise be formed had the wake flow suppressor not been there (see annotated figures above). This is consistent with applicant par. 53.
Regarding claim 2, Snyder in view of Anon teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Snyder discloses wherein a total primary dilution effective flow area of the plurality of primary dilution openings and a total secondary dilution effective flow area of the plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings define a total dilution effective flow area for dilution air, and a ratio of the total secondary dilution effective flow area to the total dilution effective flow area is in a range from five percent to forty percent.
The effective flow area of each opening 116 is
A
=
π
r
2
wherein r =
D
L
2
(see fig. 6 wherein fig. 6 is a plan view corresponding with applicant par. 48). Similarly the flow area of opening 120 is
A
=
π
r
2
wherein r =
D
Q
2
(see fig. 6). Further par. 14 of Snyder points out that DQ = sDL wherein s = 0.25 to 0.40;
A
Q
=
π
r
Q
2
=
π
D
Q
2
2
and thus
A
Q
π
=
D
Q
2
and
D
Q
=
2
A
Q
π
and similarly
D
L
=
2
A
L
π
; therefore
2
A
Q
π
=
s
D
L
=
s
2
A
L
π
and thus
A
Q
=
s
2
A
L
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
A
L
=
A
Q
s
2
.
For s2 = .0625 regarding figure 6:
Total dilution effective flow area = 3AQ + 2AL
Total secondary dilution effective flow area = 3AQ
claimed ratio = (3AQ)/( 3AQ + 2AL) = (3AQ)/( 3AQ + 2(
A
Q
s
2
)) = (3AQ)/( 3AQ + 32AQ) = 3/35= 9%.
For s2 = .16 regarding figure 6:
claimed ratio = (3AQ)/( 3AQ + 2AL) = (3AQ)/( 3AQ + 2(
A
Q
s
2
)) = (3AQ)/( 3AQ + 12.5AQ) = 3/15.5= 19%.
Regarding claim 4, Snyder in view of Anon teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Anon applied in the claim 1 analysis above include wherein the wake flow suppressor is a semi-oval-dome-shaped (see annotated figures above) wake flow suppressor. One of ordinary skill when viewing Anon figs. 3a-3b would understand the shape of the annotated cross-section shown above is similar to the shaded annotated shape in annotated figures above. The instant shaded area takes the shape of a dome and forms of a half oval.
Regarding claim 6, Snyder in view of Anon teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Snyder discloses (see figs. 3 and 6) wherein the plurality of primary dilution openings 116 are circumferentially spaced apart (see figs. 3 and 6) from one another, and the plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings 120 are circumferentially spaced apart (see figs. 3 and 6) from one another.
Regarding claim 7, Snyder in view of Anon teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Snyder discloses (see figs. 3 and 6) each of the plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings 120 is circumferentially offset (see figs. 3 and 6) from respective ones of the plurality of primary dilution openings 116.
Regarding claim 8, Snyder in view of Anon teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Snyder discloses (see figs. 2, 3 and 6) each of the plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings 120 is longitudinally offset (see figs. 2, 3 and 6), with respect to the combustor centerline axis 50, from the plurality of primary dilution openings 116.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Anon, as evidenced by Gandikota and Dierberger, as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Dierberger.
Regarding claim 5, Snyder in view of Anon teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Snyder does not disclose wherein at least one of the outer liner or the inner liner further includes at least one secondary airflow opening extending therethrough downstream of the at least one primary dilution opening and extending through the wake flow suppressor to provide a secondary airflow into the combustion chamber downstream of the at least one primary dilution opening.
Dierberger teaches (see fig. 10) at least one of an outer liner 72 or an inner liner 74 further includes at least one secondary airflow opening 108 extending therethrough and extending through a wake flow suppressor 120 (downstream of a dilution opening 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Snyder in view of Anon with wherein at least one of the outer liner or the inner liner further includes at least one secondary airflow opening extending therethrough downstream of the at least one primary dilution opening and extending through the wake flow suppressor to provide a secondary airflow into the combustion chamber downstream of the at least one primary dilution opening as taught by Dierberger in order to facilitate providing film cooling to the liner and wand flow suppressor surfaces (see Dierberger par. 68) and to cool the wake flow suppressor (this is evidenced by Gandikota par. 74, bottom regarding Gandikota’s secondary airflow opening 70 in figs. 8-9).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Anon, as evidenced by Gandikota and Dierberger, as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of UK Patent Application GB 2512642 (Spooner).
Regarding claim 16, Snyder in view of Anon teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Snyder discloses (see figs. 2, 3 and 6) wherein each of the plurality of primary dilution openings 116 is a circular-shaped (see fig. 6) dilution opening 116. Snyder does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings is a wedge-shaped dilution opening.
Spooner teaches a gas turbine (see page 1, ll. 5-6) and further teaches (see fig. 3) a dilution opening 62 (through inner wall 40 or through outer wall 42 in fig. 2; see page 5, ll. 25-27 and page 7, ll. 24-26) is a wedge-shaped dilution opening 62. It is further noted that the configuration of the claimed shape was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Snyder in view of Anon with each of the plurality of secondary wake suppression dilution openings is a wedge-shaped dilution opening because there is no persuasive evidence on record that the instant wedge shape is significant and in order to facilitate more efficient use of space regarding mass flow rate (see Spooner page 10, ll. 5-10). This results in replacing the circular shape of secondary wake suppression dilution openings 120 of Snyder in view of Anon (see Snyder fig. 6) with wedge shape as taught by Spooner.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Anon, as evidenced by Gandikota and Dierberger, and Spooner as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2019/0162413 A1 (Amble).
Regarding claim 17, Snyder in view of Anon and Spooner teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including secondary wake suppression dilution openings 120 (see Snyder figs. 3 and 6; the shape of such openings being modified by Spooner in the claim 16 analysis above) and a longitudinal direction (the direction of the axis 50) of the combustor centerline axis 50 (see Snyder fig. 2). Snyder does not disclose at least one of the secondary wake suppression dilution openings is angled with respect to a longitudinal direction.
Amble teaches a gas turbine 10 (see fig. 1) and further teaches a secondary wake suppression dilution opening 74a is angled (at angle α2) with respect to a longitudinal direction (of the gas turbine engine, see par. 30 bottom referencing angle α1; however the reference lines for both angles are parallel, see fig. 4; dilution openings 74a suppresses wake from dilution hole 64, see par. 39, top and middle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Snyder in view of Anon and Spooner with at least one of the secondary wake suppression dilution openings is angled with respect to a longitudinal direction as taught by Amble in order to facilitate improved regulation of jet wakes in the combustor (see Amble par. 2, bottom).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Snyder in view of Anon and Spooner teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including Snyder’s circular shaped dilution opening (116 in fig. 6) discussed in the claim 16 analysis above. The combination teaches the wake flow suppressor (see Anon’s annotated figures above) is arranged on a downstream side of the circular-shaped dilution opening (see Snyder fig. 16 and Anon’s annotated figures above).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Snyder in view of Anon and Spooner teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches wherein the wake flow suppressor is semi-oval-dome-shaped (see annotated figures above). One of ordinary skill when viewing Anon figs. 3a-3b would understand the shape of the annotated cross-section shown above is similar to the shaded annotated shape in annotated figures above. The instant shaded area takes the shape of a dome and forms of a half oval.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 were considered, but a new combination of references were used to reject the claims and therefor the arguments were moot.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
wake flow suppressors or similar structures: US 3134229 20070227149 20190085767.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights