DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 7/15/2026 wherein claims 1-8, 10, and 19-20 are canceled and claims 9, 11-18, and 21-22 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
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 9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinu et al. (US 2014/0083078) in view of Freund et al. (US 2012/0000200) and Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793).
Regarding Independent Claim 9, Dinu teaches (Figures 1-4) a method of purging (via 100, 102, 104) a fuel containing hydrogen (Paragraph 0015) from a hot gas circuit (the flow of hot gas 36 through the combustor 22, turbine 26, and exhaust 28; see Figures 1-2) of a gas turbine (10), the method comprising:
providing a fuel containing hydrogen (70, 72) to a combustion zone (within 22) of the gas turbine (10);
injecting (via 90, 84, 96) one of an inert gas or a combustion-inhibiting gas (100, 102, 104) at the combustion zone (within 22; see Figure 2); and
limiting the energy accumulated in a gas volume (the volume of exhaust gas 36; see Figures 1-2) downstream of the combustion zone (within 22) by:
Although Dinu does not explicitly state that the lower heating value and the higher heating value of the fuel containing hydrogen are modified, the injection of an inert gas into a combustible mixture will inherently adjust the lower heating value and higher heating value of the mixture. It is noted that “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Dinu also teaches that the ratio of carbonaceous emissions in an exhaust gas per unit of energy produced by the gas turbine are maintained at or below a threshold ratio (see abstract of Dinu). Dinu does not explicitly teach, however, extricating the gas volume from a flammability range.
Freund teaches (Figures 1-4) a system to inject an inert gas to dilute oxygen and hydrocarbon vapors to extinguish and/or inhibit flames and/or explosion (Paragraphs 0014 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu to have the mixture downstream of the combustion zone extricated from a flammability range, as taught by Freund, in order to extinguish and/or inhibit any flames and/or explosion (see Paragraphs 0014 and 0037 of Freund). Dinu in view of Freund does not teach, as discussed so far, exiting a detonation zone for the combustible mixture by: reducing a hydrogen concentration in the fuel containing hydrogen to 13% by volume by the addition of: 58% by volume of nitrogen such that the combustible mixture comprises 29% by volume of air; or 30% by volume of carbon dioxide, such that the combustible mixture comprises 57% by volume of air.
Freund teaches (Figures 1-4) exiting a detonation zone (by purging residual exhaust gases from the exhaust duct and dilute the oxygen and hydrocarbon vapors to extinguish and/or inhibit flames and/or explosion within the exhaust duct; see Paragraphs 0014 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund to have the mixture downstream of the combustor exit a detonation zone, as taught by Freund, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9. Dinu in view of Freund does not teach adding 58% by volume of nitrogen, such that the combustible mixture comprises 29% by volume of air or 30% by volume of carbon dioxide, such that the combustible mixture comprises 57% by volume of air.
Dinu teaches a controller of a gas turbine engine that may increase a flow of one or more diluents (e.g., nitrogen and carbon dioxide) into the combustor to increase a percentage of diluents relative to fuel in the overall fluid mixture, thereby augmenting power of the gas turbine engine, reducing the carbon in the overall fluid mixture, and thus reducing the carbonaceous emissions in the exhaust gas per unit of energy produced (Paragraph 0014 of Dinu). Zapadinski teaches that a gas-air mixture may be mixed with part of the exhaust gases (comprising nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide) to enhance the detonation characteristic of the separated gaseous mixture, which is utilized as the gaseous fuel (Paragraphs 0066 and 0075 of Zapadinski) and an increase of nitrogen and carbon dioxide concentration in the gaseous fuel increases the methane number of gaseous fuel and, accordingly, the detonation characteristic of the gaseous fuel is enhanced (see Paragraph 0066 of Zapadinski). Zapadinski further teaches that if there is an excessive amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide in the gaseous mixture, then the nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide may be separated from the gaseous fluid (Paragraphs 0067 and 0076 of Zapadinski). Therefore, the amount of nitrogen or carbon dioxide added to the gaseous mixture is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide into the mixture leads to an increase in the methane number and enhancing the detonation characteristic and reducing emissions in the exhaust per unit of energy produced.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide in the gaseous mixture can be increased, were taught in the prior art by Dinu and Zapadinski, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the increased nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide into the gaseous mixture, as taught by Dinu and Zapadinski in order to increase the methane number and enhance the detonation characteristic and to reduce emissions in the exhaust per unit of energy produced. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 11, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the method includes diluting (via 90, 84, 96) the fuel containing hydrogen (Paragraph 0015) to modify the lower heating value and the higher heating value of the fuel containing hydrogen (by injecting via 90, 84, 96 an inert gas or a combustion-inhibiting gas 100, 102, 104 downstream of the combustion zone at 22; see Figure 2).
Freund also teaches (Figures 1-4) diluting (via 72) a fuel (within 38) to modify the lower heating value and the higher heating value of the fuel (from 38; see Paragraphs 0034-0037).
It is noted that the injection of an inert gas into a combustible mixture will inherently adjust the lower heating value and higher heating value of the mixture.
Regarding Claim 12, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the method includes injecting (via 90, 84, 96) the inert gas (100, 102, 104) at the combustion zone (within 22; see Figure 2), and wherein said inert gas (from 100) is nitrogen (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 14, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the method includes injecting (via 90, 84, 96) the inert gas (100, 102, 104) at the combustion zone (within 22; see Figure 2), and wherein said inert gas (from 102) is steam (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 21, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein exiting a detonation zone for the combustible mixture comprises: reducing a hydrogen concentration of the combustible mixture to 13% by volume by the addition of 58% by volume of nitrogen, such that the combustible mixture comprises 29% by volume of air.
Freund teaches (Figures 1-4) exiting a detonation zone (by injecting an inert gas to dilute the oxygen and hydrocarbon vapors to extinguish and/or inhibit flames and/or explosion; see Paragraphs 0014 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to have the mixture downstream of the combustor exit a detonation zone, as taught by Freund, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9. Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski does not teach, as discussed so far, reducing a hydrogen concentration of the combustible mixture to 13% by volume by the addition of 58% by volume of nitrogen, such that the combustible mixture comprises 29% by volume of air.
Dinu teaches a controller of a gas turbine engine that may increase a flow of one or more diluents (e.g., nitrogen and carbon dioxide) into the combustor to increase a percentage of diluents relative to fuel in the overall fluid mixture, thereby augmenting power of the gas turbine engine, reducing the carbon in the overall fluid mixture, and thus reducing the carbonaceous emissions in the exhaust gas per unit of energy produced (Paragraph 0014 of Dinu). Zapadinski teaches that a gas-air mixture may be mixed with part of the exhaust gases (comprising nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide) to enhance the detonation characteristic of the separated gaseous mixture, which is utilized as the gaseous fuel (Paragraphs 0066 and 0075 of Zapadinski) and an increase of nitrogen and carbon dioxide concentration in the gaseous fuel increases the methane number of gaseous fuel and, accordingly, the detonation characteristic of the gaseous fuel is enhanced (see Paragraph 0066 of Zapadinski). Zapadinski further teaches that if there is an excessive amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide in the gaseous mixture, then the nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide may be separated from the gaseous fluid (Paragraphs 0067 and 0076 of Zapadinski). Therefore, the amount of nitrogen or carbon dioxide added to the gaseous mixture is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide into the mixture leads to an increase in the methane number and enhancing the detonation characteristic and reducing emissions in the exhaust per unit of energy produced.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide in the gaseous mixture can be increased, were taught in the prior art by Dinu and Zapadinski, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the increased nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide into the gaseous mixture, as taught by Dinu and Zapadinski in order to increase the methane number and enhance the detonation characteristic and to reduce emissions in the exhaust per unit of energy produced. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 22, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein exiting a detonation zone for the combustible mixture comprises: reducing a hydrogen concentration of the combustible mixture to 13% by volume by the addition of 30% by volume of carbon dioxide, such that the combustible mixture comprises 57% by volume of air.
Freund teaches (Figures 1-4) exiting a detonation zone (by injecting an inert gas to dilute the oxygen and hydrocarbon vapors to extinguish and/or inhibit flames and/or explosion; see Paragraphs 0014 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to have the mixture downstream of the combustor exit a detonation zone, as taught by Freund, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9. Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski does not teach, as discussed so far, reducing a hydrogen concentration of the combustible mixture to 13% by volume by the addition of 30% by volume of carbon dioxide, such that the combustible mixture comprises 57% by volume of air.
Dinu teaches a controller of a gas turbine engine that may increase a flow of one or more diluents (e.g., nitrogen and carbon dioxide) into the combustor to increase a percentage of diluents relative to fuel in the overall fluid mixture, thereby augmenting power of the gas turbine engine, reducing the carbon in the overall fluid mixture, and thus reducing the carbonaceous emissions in the exhaust gas per unit of energy produced (Paragraph 0014 of Dinu). Zapadinski teaches that a gas-air mixture may be mixed with part of the exhaust gases (comprising nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide) to enhance the detonation characteristic of the separated gaseous mixture, which is utilized as the gaseous fuel (Paragraphs 0066 and 0075 of Zapadinski) and an increase of nitrogen and carbon dioxide concentration in the gaseous fuel increases the methane number of gaseous fuel and, accordingly, the detonation characteristic of the gaseous fuel is enhanced (see Paragraph 0066 of Zapadinski). Zapadinski further teaches that if there is an excessive amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide in the gaseous mixture, then the nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide may be separated from the gaseous fluid (Paragraphs 0067 and 0076 of Zapadinski). Therefore, the amount of nitrogen or carbon dioxide added to the gaseous mixture is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide into the mixture leads to an increase in the methane number and enhancing the detonation characteristic and reducing emissions in the exhaust per unit of energy produced.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide in the gaseous mixture can be increased, were taught in the prior art by Dinu and Zapadinski, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the increased nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide into the gaseous mixture, as taught by Dinu and Zapadinski in order to increase the methane number and enhance the detonation characteristic and to reduce emissions in the exhaust per unit of energy produced. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinu et al. (US 2014/0083078) in view of Freund et al. (US 2012/0000200) and Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jordan, JR. et al. (US 2017/0030228).
Regarding Claim 13, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu does teach injecting inert gas at a combustion zone (see Figure 2). Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the method includes injecting the inert gas, wherein said inert gas is carbon dioxide.
Jordan teaches (Figures 1-9) wherein the method includes injecting (via 118) the inert gas (from 100) into the hot gas path of a gas turbine system (see Figure 2), wherein said inert gas is carbon dioxide (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to have the injecting the inert gas into the hot gas path of the gas turbine system, wherein said inert gas is carbon dioxide, as taught by Jordan, in order to control a temperature of the exhaust gas (see Paragraph 0040 of Jordan).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinu et al. (US 2014/0083078) in view of Freund et al. (US 2012/0000200) and Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tapscott et al. (US 6,419,027).
Regarding Claim 15, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu does teach injecting inert gas at a combustion zone (see Figure 2). Dinu in view of Freund does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the method includes injecting the combustion-inhibiting gas, wherein the combustion-inhibiting gas is bromomethane.
Freund teaches (Figures 1-4) injecting (via 72) a combustion-inhibiting gas (any gas or mixture of gases suitable to suppress combustion, prevent explosion, or extinguish a flame; Paragraph 0034 and 0037) in the hot gas path of a gas turbine (see Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to include injecting combustion-inhibiting gas in the hot gas path of the gas turbine, as taught by Freund, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9. Dinu in view of Zapadinski does not teach that the combustion-inhibiting gas is bromomethane.
Tapscott teaches the use of bromomethane (also known as methyl bromide; Column 1, lines 35-40) to extinguish a flame (Column 1, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to use bromomethane to extinguish a flame, as taught by Tapscott, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 16, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu does teach injecting inert gas at a combustion zone (see Figure 2). Dinu in view of Freund does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the method includes injecting the combustion-inhibiting gas, wherein the combustion-inhibiting gas is tetrachloromethane.
Freund teaches (Figures 1-4) injecting (via 72) a combustion-inhibiting gas (any gas or mixture of gases suitable to suppress combustion, prevent explosion, or extinguish a flame; Paragraph 0034 and 0037) in the hot path of the gas turbine (see Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to include injecting combustion-inhibiting gas in the hot gas path of the gas turbine, as taught by Freund, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9. Dinu in view of Freund does not teach that the combustion-inhibiting gas is tetrachloromethane.
Tapscott teaches the use of tetrachloromethane (also known as carbon tetrachloride; Column 1, lines 35-40) to extinguish a flame (Column 1, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan to use tetrachloromethane to extinguish a flame, as taught by Tapscott, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 17, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu does teach injecting inert gas at a combustion zone (see Figure 2). Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the method includes injecting the combustion-inhibiting gas, wherein the combustion-inhibiting gas is tetrachloromethane.
Freund teaches (Figures 1-4) injecting (via 72) a combustion-inhibiting gas (any gas or mixture of gases suitable to suppress combustion, prevent explosion, or extinguish a flame; Paragraph 0034 and 0037) in the hot gas path of a gas turbine (see Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to include injecting combustion-inhibiting gas, as taught by Freund, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9. Dinu in view of Freund does not teach that the combustion-inhibiting gas is a halogen hydrocarbon.
Tapscott teaches the use of a halogen hydrocarbon (the use of halocarbons in Column 2, lines 13-15 and the use of HCFCs in Column 3, lines 27-39) to extinguish or suppress a flame or explosion (Column 2, lines 13-15 and Column 3, lines 27-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski to use a halogen hydrocarbon to extinguish a flame, as taught by Tapscott, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinu et al. (US 2014/0083078) in view of Freund et al. (US 2012/0000200) and Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Vandale et al. (US 2017/0058770).
Regarding Claim 18, Dinu in view of Freund and Zapadinski teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu further teaches (Figures 1-5) providing the fuel (from 70, 72) containing hydrogen (Paragraph 0015) to the combustion zone (within 22) of the gas turbine (10) via a fuel nozzle (24); and injecting one of the inert gas or the combustion-inhibiting gas (100, 102, 104) at the combustion zone (within 22; see Figure 2). Dinu appears to schematically show but does not explicitly teach that the inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas is injected downstream of the fuel nozzle.
Vandale teaches (Figures 1-4) providing fuel (via 58) to a combustion zone (within 66; see Figure 2) of the gas turbine (10) via a fuel nozzle (58), and injecting inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas (from 84) at the combustion zone (within 66; see Figure 2) downstream of (with respect to the flow of gas 80; see Figure 2) the fuel nozzle (58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan to have the inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas be injected downstream of the fuel nozzle, as taught by Vandale, in order to reduce nitrous oxide emissions levels and/or enhance combustor performance (Paragraph 0042 of Vandale). In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (in this case, rearranging the location of the inert gas injection) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach adjusting a three-component mixture (fuel, inert gas, and air). In response, it is noted that both Dinu and Zapadinski teaches a three-component mixture (fuel, inert gas, and air; see Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0014-0018 of Dinu and Paragraphs 0066 and 0075 of Zapadinski). As discussed in the body of the rejection above, Dinu teaches a controller of a gas turbine engine that may increase a flow of one or more diluents (e.g., nitrogen and carbon dioxide) into the combustor to increase a percentage of diluents relative to fuel in the overall fluid mixture, thereby augmenting power of the gas turbine engine, reducing the carbon in the overall fluid mixture, and thus reducing the carbonaceous emissions in the exhaust gas per unit of energy produced (Paragraph 0014 of Dinu). Zapadinski teaches that a gas-air mixture may be mixed with part of the exhaust gases (comprising nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide) to enhance the detonation characteristic of the separated gaseous mixture, which is utilized as the gaseous fuel (Paragraphs 0066 and 0075 of Zapadinski) and an increase of nitrogen and carbon dioxide concentration in the gaseous fuel increases the methane number of gaseous fuel and, accordingly, the detonation characteristic of the gaseous fuel is enhanced (see Paragraph 0066 of Zapadinski). Zapadinski further teaches that if there is an excessive amount of nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide in the gaseous mixture, then the nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide may be separated from the gaseous fluid (Paragraphs 0067 and 0076 of Zapadinski). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adjusting the relative percentage by volume of one component in the mixture would necessarily affect the relative percentage by volume of another component in the mixture.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights