DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 3/19/2026 wherein claims 1-8 are canceled and claims 9-20 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “injecting one of an inert gas or a combustion-inhibiting gas at the combustion zone via a distribution ring disposed in an exhaust section of the gas turbine” (Claim 9, lines 4-5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted Applicant’s Figure 7 illustrates that the source of inert gas and/or combustion inhibitor 77 is injected in an exhaust section 74 through a distribution ring 75. This injection is clearly performed downstream of the combustion zone 54 within combustion chamber 20, not at the combustion zone as required by the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant claims “injecting one of an inert gas or a combustion-inhibiting gas at the combustion zone via a distribution ring disposed in an exhaust section of the gas turbine” in lines 4-5 of claim 9. Applicant’s specification describes “a distribution ring 75 placed inside the exhaust section 74 located immediately downstream of the expansion turbine 24. In this third embodiment, the injection of air and/or of inert gas and/or of combustion inhibitor can be carried out through the distribution ring 75. For this, it is sufficient to have available at least one injection point on the distribution ring 75. Furthermore, the source to be injected into the distribution ring 75 can be an external source 77 of air and/or of inert gas and/or of combustion inhibitor.” (Paragraph 0059 of Applicant’s specification). It is also noted that Applicant’s drawing of the distribution ring 75 clearly depicts it injecting the inert gas or combustion-inhibiting as downstream of the turbine section. Applicant’s specification does not describe and Applicant’s drawings do not show the injection of the gas from the distribution ring “at the combustion zone” as required by the claim. Therefore, Applicant’s claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 10-20 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261,270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Determining enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual findings, in re Vaeck. 947, F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and/or use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather it is a conclusion that may be reached by weighing some or all of the following non-exhaustive list of factual considerations: (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737.
Applicant claims “injecting one of an inert gas or a combustion-inhibiting gas at the combustion zone via a distribution ring disposed in an exhaust section of the gas turbine” (Claim 9, lines 4-5). Although the specification states “a distribution ring 75 placed inside the exhaust section 74 located immediately downstream of the expansion turbine 24. In this third embodiment, the injection of air and/or of inert gas and/or of combustion inhibitor can be carried out through the distribution ring 75. For this, it is sufficient to have available at least one injection point on the distribution ring 75. Furthermore, the source to be injected into the distribution ring 75 can be an external source 77 of air and/or of inert gas and/or of combustion inhibitor.” (Paragraph 0059 of Applicant’s specification), the specification does not describe nor do the drawings show any details of any structural feature which would allow an inert gas or a combustion-inhibiting gas from a distribution ring, which is disposed in an exhaust section of the gas turbine, to be injected at the combustion zone.
Thus, the specification provides no direction or working examples (factual considerations F and G, above) with respect to how to achieve the injection of the gas into the combustion zone from a distribution ring that is disposed downstream of the combustion zone, as required by the claims. It is further noticed that the environment is one of harsh fluidic conditions and large vibrational and thermal loads, and therefore, is largely unpredictable (factual consideration E, above). Therefore, based upon the disclosure of Applicant, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use the invention without undue experimentation. The Examiner therefore concludes that the specification does not enable, in combination with the other limitations of the claims, how to make or use the claimed invention.
Claims 10-20 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "injecting one of an inert gas or a combustion-inhibiting gas at the combustion zone via a distribution ring disposed in an exhaust section of the gas turbine" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if the inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas is to be injected at the combustion zone upstream of the distribution ring or if the inert gas or combustion inhibiting gas downstream of the combustion zone at the distribution ring in the exhaust section.
Claims 10-20 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 9.
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, 11-14, and 19-20, to the extent they could be understood, 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 Jordan, JR. et al. (US 2017/0030228).
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 purging system to inject an inert gas into exhaust gas to purge residual exhaust gases from the exhaust and 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 within the exhaust duct (see Paragraphs 0014 and 0037 of Freund). Dinu also teaches that the inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas (100, 102, 104) can be injected downstream of (via 86, 92, 94) the combustion zone (within 22), Dinu in view of Freund does not teach that the inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas is injected via a distribution ring disposed in an exhaust section of the gas turbine.
Jordan teaches (Figures 1-9) injecting an inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas (from 14; see Figure 2) to an exhaust section (26) of a gas turbine (16) via a distribution ring (226, 220).
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 inert gas or combustion-inhibiting gas be injected via a distribution ring disposed in an exhaust section of the gas turbine, as taught by Jordan, in order to route the coolant from the coolant supply to the injection sites so that the temperature of the exhaust gas can be reduced (Paragraphs 0023 and 0057 of Jordan).
Regarding Claim 11, Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan 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 Jordan 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 13, Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan 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 Jordan 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).
Regarding Claim 14, Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan 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 19, Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the distribution ring is disposed immediately downstream of an expansion turbine of the gas turbine.
Jordan teaches (Figures 1-9) the distribution ring (226, 220) is disposed immediately downstream of (at exhaust conduit 26) an expansion turbine (90) of the gas turbine (16).
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 distribution ring is disposed immediately downstream of an expansion turbine of the gas turbine, as taught by Jordan, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a source to be injected into the distribution ring is an external source of at least one of air, inert gas, or combustion inhibitor.
Jordan teaches (Figures 1-9) a source (from 14; see Figures 1-2 and 8-9) to be injected into the distribution ring (226, 220) is an external source (see Figures 1-2 and 8-9) of at least one of air, inert gas, or combustion inhibitor (cooling fluid supply can include water, air, inert gas; see 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 Jordan to have a source injected into the distribution ring be an external source of at least one of air, inert gas, or combustion inhibitor, as taught by Jordan, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9.
Claim 10 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 Jordan, JR. et al. (US 2017/0030228) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zapadinski (US 2004/0154793).
Regarding Claim 10, Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dinu in view of Freund and Jordan does not teach, as discussed so far, exiting a detonation zone by: reducing a hydrogen concentration in the fuel containing hydrogen to 13% by volume by the addition of: 58% by volume of nitrogen; or 30% by volume of carbon dioxide.
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 or 30% by volume of carbon dioxide.
Zapadinski teaches that 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). 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.
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 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 Zapadinski in order to increase the methane number and enhance the detonation characteristic. 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).
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 Jordan, JR. et al. (US 2017/0030228) 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 Jordan 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 Jordan 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 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 Jordan 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 Jordan 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 Jordan 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 Jordan 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 Jordan 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 Jordan 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 Jordan, JR. et al. (US 2017/0030228) 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 Jordan 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 with respect to claim(s) 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
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