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 .
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 Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 [the]a gas turbine flow
Claim 1, line 3 [the]a fuel gas booster pressure
Claim 1, line 4 [the]a fuel gas booster power consumption
Claim 1, line 4 [the]a fuel gas booster and gas turbine package
Claim 7, line 2 [the]a gas turbine casing
Claim 9, line 2 [the]a pressure and capacity
Claim 11, line 3 [the]a position
Claim 11 in line 4 includes “a set value (depending on the gas turbine).” It is believed to be in error for - - a set value wherein the set value depends on the gas turbine - -
Claim 11, line 5 [the]a fuel gas booster capacity
Claim 13, line 3 [the]a needed
Claim 13, line 3-4 [the]a pressure
Claim 13 in line 4 includes “can be.” It is believed to be in error for - - is - -
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “optimize” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimize” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear in what way the fuel gas booster power consumption or the fuel gas booster and gas turbine package power consumption is optimized. Optimized relative to what?
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the term for a device that is “a cylinder valve unloader associated to each cylinder effect” is unclear. The term for a device that is “an additional variable clearance pocket of each individual cylinder clearance pocket” is unclear. Examiner suspects these terms were mistranslated. In English, it is unclear to what devices these terms refer.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the term “slow control system” in claims 3 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slow control system” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear in what way the control system is slow. Open loop control systems are generally faster than closed loop control systems. However, it is not clear that this is what the claims is referring to.
Regarding claim 6, the term “fast control system” in claims 3 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast control system” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear in what way the control system is slow. Open loop control systems are generally faster than closed loop control systems. However, it is not clear that this is what the claims is referring to.
Regarding claim 9, the term “a pressure capacity needed by the gas turbine” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a pressure capacity needed by the gas turbine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what value is “needed.” What is “needed” depends on specifying a particular operating condition.
Regarding claim 10, the term “at least equal to that needed by the gas turbine” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least equal to that needed by the gas turbine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what value is “needed.” What is “needed” depends on specifying a particular operating condition.
Regarding claim 12, the term “slowly actuated” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly actuated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what slowly means-slow relative to what?
Regarding claim 13, the term “needed fuel gas pressure” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “needed fuel gas pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what value is “needed.” What is “needed” depends on specifying a particular operating condition.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duscha (US 2021/0396185) in view of Najera (US 6,622,489).
Regarding claim 1, Duscha teaches an integrated system (1, Fig. 1) comprising a compressor based fuel gas booster (53, 54 and 55) and a gas turbine (10, 20) and wherein the gas turbine flow and pressure control system (¶34, gas turbine engine control system) comprises at least one gas turbine fuel gas input control valve (16, 26) and the fuel gas booster pressure and capacity control system (¶34, fuel gas pressure control system) comprises a gas turbine fuel gas input control valve position controller, associated to said at least one gas turbine fuel gas input control valve (¶34, a control line is provided from the fuel gas pressure control system that causes a position of the fuel gas input control valve to change in accordance with an emergency flow setting), and fuel gas booster capacity control devices (¶47, fuel gas boosters 53, 54 and 55 are controlled by the fuel gas pressure control system), associated to said compressor based fuel gas booster (53, 54, 55).
Duscha doesn’t teach the compressor based fuel gas booster is a reciprocating compressor based fuel gas booster and the gas turbine flow and pressure control system and the fuel gas booster pressure and capacity control system are synchronized to optimize the fuel gas booster power consumption or the fuel gas booster and gas turbine package power consumption.
Najera teaches a control unit for controlling the discharge pressure of gas booster for gas turbine similar to Duscha (Abstract, Fig. 1). The fuel gas booster is controlled such that the gas turbine flow and pressure control system and the fuel gas booster pressure and capacity control system are synchronized to optimize the fuel gas booster power consumption or the fuel gas booster and gas turbine package power consumption (Col. 4:19-46). The control system minimizes power consumption of the system (Col. 4:36-37, power savings result.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Duscha have the gas turbine flow and pressure control system and the fuel gas booster pressure and capacity control system synchronized to optimize the fuel gas booster power consumption or the fuel gas booster and gas turbine package power consumption, as taught by Najera, in order to save power in the system.
Duscha and Najera as discussed so far, don’t teach the compressor based fuel gas booster is a reciprocating compressor based fuel gas booster. Najera teaches The gas booster can
be of any well-known design and may be motor-driven. Preferably, however, the gas booster 15 is of a positive displacement type (Col. 3: 33-36). A reciprocating compressor is a positive displacement type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Duscha in view of Najera have fuel gas booster by a reciprocating type, as taught by Najera, in order to allow the fuel to be pressurized in the manner taught by Najera.
Regarding claim 2, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Najera further teaches a reciprocating compressor inlet valve (13, Fig. 1, Col. 4:65-Col. 5:8). The compressor inlet valve allows the gas booster to be unloaded for energy savings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Duscha in view of Najera have compressor inlet valve, as taught by Najera, in order to allow the gas booster to be unloaded for energy savings.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Najera further teaches the fuel gas booster pressure and capacity control system is a slow control system (Col. 4:19-46, feedback control loops are taught. Feedback control loops are slower than open loop control and typically have lower oscillations relative to open loop control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Duscha in view of Najera the fuel gas booster pressure and capacity control system be a slow control system, as taught by Najera, in order to allow minimize oscillations associated with control.
Regarding claim 6, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Duscha further teaches the gas turbine flow and pressure control
system is a fast control system (¶52, a fast feedforward, deloading of the gas turbine engines is initiated).
Regarding claim 8, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Duscha further teaches two reciprocating compressor based fuel gas
Boosters (Fig. 1, 53, 54, 55). As discussed above, the Duscha has been previously modified to teach reciprocating compressors.
Regarding claim 9, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Duscha further teaches each reciprocating compressor based fuel gas booster is designed to provide at least the pressure and capacity needed by the gas turbine (¶46, each can provide 50% of the needed pressure and capacity or slightly more than 50%).
Regarding claim 10, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Duscha further teaches each reciprocating compressor based fuel gas
booster is designed to provide a lower pressure and capacity than needed by the gas turbine, the
overall pressure and capacity of the reciprocating compressor based fuel gas boosters being at least equal to that needed by the gas turbine (¶46).
Regarding claim 11, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Duscha further teaches controlling the position of a gas turbine fuel gas input control valve (¶42, actuation signal is sent to valves 16 and 26 to control mass flow of fuel) and Najera further teaches if said position is less open than a set value (depending on the gas turbine), then- reducing the fuel gas booster capacity (Col. 4:38-Col. 5:8). The capacity is reduced to optimize efficiency of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Duscha in view of Najera have if said position is less open than a set value (depending on the gas turbine), then- reducing the fuel gas booster capacity, as taught by Najera, in order to allow the gas booster to be unloaded for optimal system efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Najera further teaches said step of reducing the fuel gas booster capacity
is actuated slowly (Col. 4:19-46, feedback control loops are taught. Feedback control loops are slower than open loop control and typically have lower oscillations relative to open loop control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Duscha in view of Najera have said step of reducing the fuel gas booster capacity is actuated slowly, as taught by Najera, in order to allow minimize oscillations associated with the control of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Duscha further teaches in case two reciprocating compressor based fuel
gas booster are used, if the needed fuel gas pressure from the fuel gas boosters is equal to or lower than the pressure that can be provided by each one of the two reciprocating compressor based fuel gas boosters, then only one reciprocating compressor based fuel gas booster is used (¶56, the emergency power output is chosen to allow the fuel gas booster to operate with only single booster).
Regarding claim 14, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Duscha further teaches while only one reciprocating compressor based
fuel gas booster is used, the other is under maintenance (¶52, one compressor has failed and thus, is under maintenance).
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duscha (US 2021/0396185) in view of Najera (US 6,622,489) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Birch (US 5,606,853).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 16-17, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above for claims 1 and 2. Najera teaches a feedback control system but Duscha in view of Najera doesn’t teach a proportional control system or a proportional-integral control system.
Birch (Figs. 1 and 5) teaches a fuel gas booster 10 that is controlled via fuel gas booster pressure capacity and control system for a gas turbine. The fuel gas booster control system uses a PID controller, which includes proportional control to provide feedback control (Col. 3: 37-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fuel gas booster system of Duscha in view of Najera have a proportional control system or a proportional-integral control system, as taught by Birch, in order to enable the feedback control in the fuel gas booster control system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duscha (US 2021/0396185) in view of Najera (US 6,622,489) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Roslund (US 6,948,919).
Regarding claim 7, Duscha in view of Najera teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above for claims 1. Duscha in view of Najera doesn’t teach the reciprocating compressor based fuel gas booster is integrally connected to the gas turbine casing.
Roslund teaches a microturbine system with a fuel gas booster integrally connected to the gas turbine casing (Figs. 1-3, Col. 3: 9-19). Thus, a compact system design is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Duscha in view of Najera have the reciprocating compressor based fuel gas booster is integrally connected to the gas turbine casing, as taught by Roslund, in order to provide a compact system design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OLYNICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am-5 pm (ET).
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, Phuttiwat 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.
/DAVID P. OLYNICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741