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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 fuel command value output unit in claims 1 and 4 and the target amount calculation unit in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are: the supply state determination unit in claim 1, the shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit in claims 1-2, the fuel command value output unit in claims 1 and 4, and the target amount calculation unit in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically,
i) the supply state determination unit in claim 1 is interpreted as the structure of the computer carrying the algorithm to determine a supply state of the second fuel to the combustor as claimed in claim 1, see [0021 and 0023] and Fig. 2;
ii) the shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit in claims 1-2 is interpreted as the as the structure of the computer carrying the algorithm a) to calculate shutoff-time fuel flow rate to be supplied to the combustor corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off as claimed in claim 1 and b) to calculate the shutoff-time fuel flow rate corresponding to a current output of the gas turbine based on a correlation between an output of the gas turbine and the shutoff-time fuel flow rate in a case of the fuel co-firing ratio as claimed in claim 2, see [0021, 0031-0032, and 0041] and Fig. 2; and
iii) the fuel command value output unit in claims 1 and 4 and the target amount calculation unit in claim 4 raise 112 issues, see rejection below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, recitation “a shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit that calculates, in a case where the supply state where at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined, a shutoff-time fuel flow rate to be supplied to the combustor corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off; and a fuel command value output unit that outputs a fuel flow rate command value corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off” contains limitation that the specification does not provide sufficient written description for because:
i) the specification discloses, at [0029-0032], the first fuel flow rate command value CSO1 is calculated in the first fuel flow rate commanded value calculation unit 20a in Fig. 2, which including the normal-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a1 and the shutoff-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a2, wherein, in the normal state, the first fuel flow rate command value CSO1 is calculated via the normal-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a1, and in the shutoff state, the first fuel flow rate command value CSO1 is calculated via the shutoff-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a2, moreover, at [0041], the specification discloses the shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit 20a2 calculates the fuel co-firing ratio and calculates the shutoff-time flow rate that should be supplied to the combustor in accordance with the fuel co-firing ratio to obtain the first fuel flow rate command value CSO1, wherein per [0027], the first fuel flow rate command value CSO1 may be selected as the fuel flow rate command value CSO via a flow value section unit 20e in Fig. 2, i.e., the disclosed fuel co-firing ratio is obtained before the fuel flow rate command value is output;
ii) however, the claimed recitation, “a shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit that calculates … a shutoff-time fuel flow rate to be supplied to the combustor corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio; and a fuel command value output unit that outputs a fuel flow rate command value corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained”, requires the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the fuel flow rate command value (the disclosed CSO in Fig. 2) is output, which is conflicting with the disclosure;
iii) furthermore, the specification merely states said recitation at [0008 and 0050], and it is noted, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)”, MPEP 2163.03 (V), and “The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. ("Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’" (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)) An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945”, MPEP 2181(II)(B), in this case, the specification does not provide sufficient written description for the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the function as claimed in said recitation; and
iv) therefore, claim 1 and its dependents are rejected as lacking written description.
Regarding claims 6-7, recitation “a step of calculating, in a case where the supply state where at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined, a shutoff-time fuel flow rate to be supplied to the combustor corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off; and a step of outputting a fuel flow rate command value corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off” contains limitation that the specification does not provide sufficient written description for because:
i) as explained in i-ii) of the 112a rejection for claim 1 and its dependents above, recitation “outputting a fuel flow rate command value corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained”, requires the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the fuel flow rate command value (the disclosed CSO in Fig. 2) is output, which is conflicting with the disclosure;
ii) furthermore, the specification merely states said recitation at [0009-0010, 0060 and 0062], and it is noted, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)”, MPEP 2163.03 (V), and “The Federal Circuit has recognized the problem of providing a sufficient disclosure for functional claiming, particularly with generic claim language, explaining that "The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli & Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)”, MPEP 2181(IV), in this case, the specification does not provide sufficient written description for the method step as claimed in said recitation, and
iii) therefore, claims 6-7 are rejected as lacking written description.
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 1-7 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 and its dependents, recitation “a shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit that calculates, in a case where the supply state where at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined, a shutoff-time fuel flow rate to be supplied to the combustor corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off; and a fuel command value output unit that outputs a fuel flow rate command value corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off” is indefinite because:
i) Claim limitation “a fuel command value output unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, specifically,
- according to the specification, at [0026], the fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20 outputs a fuel flow rate command value CSO, and at [0027], the fuel flow rat command value CSO is output by a low value section unit 20e, which is a part of the fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20, as shown in Fig. 2, and thus, it is unclear whether term “a fuel command value output unit” refers to either of the disclosed the fuel flow rate command value calculation unit and the disclosed low value section unit, or a different unit;
- the specification merely states said recitation at para [0008 and 0050], and as explained in i) of the 112a rejection for claim 1 above, the disclosed fuel co-firing ratio is obtained before the disclosed fuel flow rate command value CSO is output, which is conflicting with the claimed recitation,
- therefore, it is unclear the claimed fuel command value output unit is what structure of the computer that carries what algorithm to perform the claimed function, “outputs a fuel flow rate command value corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181;
ii) as explained in i-ii) in the 112a rejection for claim 1 and its dependent above, the specification discloses a fuel co-firing ratio that is a calculated ratio calculated by the shutoff-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a2 per [0041], and moreover, the specification discloses, at [0043] and Figs. 1 and 4, due to the distance between the second fuel shutoff valve 18 and combustor 2, after the second fuel shutoff valve 18 is closed at t1, the fuel co-firing ratio in the combustor 2 is not changed until t3, i.e., the specification disclosed a fuel co-firing ratio that is an actual ratio in the combustor, and thus, a) it is unclear whether either of the claimed fuel co-firing ratio corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate and the claimed fuel co-firing ratio obtained after the fuel flow rate command value is output refers to any of the disclosed calculated fuel co-firing ratio and the disclosed actual fuel co-firing ratio in the combustor; and b) it is unclear whether/how the two claimed fuel co-firing ratios are related. The same rejection is also applied to the two claimed fuel co-firing ratios in claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 2, i) it is unclear whether terms “a current output of the gas turbine” and “an output of the gas turbine” refer to the same output or different outputs and whether/how the two claimed outputs are related; and ii) due to the ambiguity of ii) of claim 1, it is unclear “the fuel co-firing ratio” refers to which of the two claimed fuel-co-firing ratio in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4,
I. claim limitation “a target amount calculation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, specifically,
- the specification merely states said recitation at para [0056],
- Fig. 2 and [0029-0030] disclose a turbine output P and a target turbine output Pref are input into the first fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a to calculate a first fuel flow rate command value CSO1 via the normal-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a1 in the normal state or via the shutoff-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a2 in the shutoff state,
- Fig. 2 and [0033] disclose the rotation speed R and a target rotation speed Rref are input into the second fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20b to calculate a second fuel flow rate command value CSO2,
- Fig. 2 and [0034] disclose an exhaust gas temperature EXT and a target exhaust gas temperature EXTref are input into the third fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20c to calculate a third fuel flow rate command value CSO3,
- Fig. 2 and [0035] disclose the blade path temperature BPT and a target blade path temperature BPTref are input into the fourth fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20d to calculate a fourth fuel flow rate command value CSO4,
- Fig. 2 and [0027] disclose the first, second, third, and fourth fuel flow rate command value CSO1, COS2, COS3, and COS4 may be selected as the fuel flow rate command value CSO via a flow value section unit 20e in Fig. 2,
- thus,
1) it is unclear whether the claimed fuel flow rate being used to output the fuel flow rate command value (the disclosed CSO) in a normal-time control mode refers to any of the disclosed the first, second, third, and fourth fuel flow rate command value CSO1, CSO2, CSO3, and CSO4, or a different fuel flow rate;
2) it is further unclear whether the claimed target amount output value used to calculate the claimed fuel flow rate refers to any of the disclosed “target turbine output Pref”, “target rotation speed Rref”, “target exhaust gas temperature EXTref”, and “target blade path temperature BPTref”, or a different value;
3) it is further unclear whether the claimed current output value used to calculate the claimed fuel flow rate refers to any of the disclosed “turbine output P”, “rotation speed R”, “exhaust gas temperature EXT” and “the blade path temperature BPT”, or a different value;
- therefore, it is unclear the claimed target amount calculation unit refers to what structure of the computer that carries what algorithm to perform the claimed function, “calculates a fuel flow rate to be supplied to the combustor based on a target output value and a current output value of the gas turbine”;
II. claim limitation “the fuel command value output unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, specifically,
- the specification merely states said recitation at para [0008 and 0056],
- Fig. 2 and [0040 and 0044-0046] disclose the gas turbine control device 50 switches the control mode from the shutoff-time control mode to the normal-time control mode,
- Fig. 2 and [0028] disclose the switching between the normal-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a1 and the shutoff-time fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a2 is performed based on the shutoff detection signal Sa input to the first fuel flow rate command value calculation unit 20a,
- thus, it is unclear the claimed fuel command value output unit refers to what structure of the computer carries what algorithm to perform the claimed function, “switches a control mode from a shutoff-time control mode … to a normal-time control mode …”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeung 20210095601 as evidenced by Bhatnagar 20100229524.
Regarding claim 1, Yeung teaches the invention as claimed: a gas turbine control device (116 and 118, Fig. 1 and [0030 and 0034]) that controls a gas turbine (106) including a combustor (connected to the fuel manifold 501, see Fig. 5) capable of generating a combustion gas for driving the gas turbine (per [0027 and 0031 ] and Fig. 1, 106 is a gas turbine engine providing a desired output or a torque via a drive shaft) by co-firing a first fuel (the secondary fuel, which is a liquid fuel, e.g., diesel, see [0028-0029]) and a second fuel (the primary fuel, which is a gaseous fuel, e.g., natural gas, see [0028-0029]) having a lower calorific value per unit volume than the first fuel (because natural gas is a gaseous fuel that has less density comparing to diesel), the gas turbine control device comprising:
a supply state determination unit that determines a supply state of the second fuel to the combustor (per [0044] and Fig. 5, the part of the controller 116 that determines 106 receives an insufficient amount of the primary fuel from source 108 when a pressure drop of the primary fuel is measured by sensor 110’);
a shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit that calculates (the part of the controller 116 that determines the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 in Fig. 5 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106 in order to maintain 106 to be operated at a desired power/torque output, see [0031, 0044-0045 and 0050]), in a case where the supply state where at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined (the insufficient amount of the primary fuel is determined by measuring the pressure drop of the primary fuel, and such insufficient amount of primary fuel is caused by at least partially clogged at filter 504, [0044]), a shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) to be supplied to the combustor (in the 106) corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the filter 504 is at least partially clogged, per [0044], a fuel co-firing ratio is calculated by controller 116 for 106 to be operated at the desired output/toque only using the secondary fuel, per [0050], and said fuel co-firing ratio is represented by 100% secondary fuel); and
a fuel command value output unit (the part of the controller 116 that controls the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, the secondary fuel pump 508, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) that outputs a fuel flow rate command value (the value that controls the opening of the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’ and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the filter 504 is at least partially clogged per [0044], the controller 116 closes the primary fuel valve 506, operates the secondary fuel pump 508, and open the secondary fuel valve 510 in order to only use the secondary fuel to operate 106, per [0045 and 0050], and due to the time lags caused by system responding time, e.g., 506, 508, and 510 in Fig. 5, and/or piping distance, e.g., distance between 506/510 to manifold 501 in Fig. 5, the fuel co-firing ratio represented by 100% secondary fuel is not obtained in the manifold 501 until the adjusted flow rate of the primary fuel and the secondary fuel reach the manifold 501; as evidenced by Bhatnagar’s [0052] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Yeung further teaches wherein the shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit (the part of the controller 116 that determines the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 in Fig. 5 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106 in order to maintain 106 to be operated at a desired power/torque output, see [0031, 0044-0045 and 0050]) calculates the shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) corresponding to a current output of the gas turbine (the desired power/torque output of the 106 by using only the primary fuel when the clogging of filter 504 occurs) based on a correlation between an output of the gas turbine (the power/torque output of 106 by using only the secondary fuel) and the shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) in a case of the fuel co-firing ratio (in order to maintain the same level of the desired power/torque output of the 106 after replacing the primary fuel with the secondary fuel, where the fuel co-firing ratio is represented by 100% secondary fuel).
Regarding claim 3, Yeung further teaches wherein the shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) is effective for a predetermined time (the second timer when the pressure of the primary fuel is kept above the preset point, see [0051]) after the supply state where the at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined (the insufficient amount of the primary fuel is determined by measuring the pressure drop of the primary fuel, and such insufficient amount of primary fuel is caused by at least partially clogged at filter 504, [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Yeung further teaches a target amount calculation unit (the part of the controller that calculates the amount of the primary fuel provided to and operated the 106 at the desired power/torque output, see [0031]) that calculates a fuel flow rate (the amount of the primary fuel provided to and operated the 106 at the desired power/torque output, see [0031]) to be supplied to the combustor (in the 106) based on a target output value (the desired power/torque output of the 106 by using only the primary fuel from source 108) and a current output value (the desired power/torque output of the 106 by using only the secondary fuel from supply 112) of the gas turbine (106; per [0051], after controller 116 determined that the pressure of the primary fuel is kept above preset point after the second timer, the controller switches back to the primary fuel from the secondary fuel while maintaining the desired power/torque output of the 106),
wherein the fuel command value output unit (the part of the controller 116 that controls the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, the secondary fuel pump 508, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) switches a control mode from a shutoff-time control mode (only providing the 106 with the secondary fuel from supply 112) in which the fuel flow rate command value (the value that controls the opening of the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) corresponding to a total fuel flow rate (a total amount of the secondary fuel provided to the 106 in order to maintain the desire power/torque output) to be supplied corresponding to the fuel co-firing ratio (the fuel co-firing ratio represented by 100% secondary fuel) is output to a normal-time control mode (only providing the 106 with the primary fuel from source 108) in which the fuel flow rate command value (the value that controls the opening of the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) is output using the fuel flow rate (the amount of the primary fuel provided to and operated the 106 at the desired power/torque output after switching back to the primary fuel, see [0031 and 0051]) calculated by the target amount calculation unit (the desired power/torque output of the 106 by using only the primary fuel from source 108), after the predetermined time elapses (the second timer when the pressure of the primary fuel is kept above the preset point, see [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Yeung teaches the invention as claimed: A gas turbine control method (performed by 116 and 118, Fig. 1 and [0030 and 0034]) of controlling a gas turbine (106) including a combustor (connected to the fuel manifold 501, see Fig. 5) capable of generating a combustion gas for driving the gas turbine (per [0027 and 0031 ] and Fig. 1, 106 is a gas turbine engine providing a desired output or a torque via a drive shaft) by co-firing a first fuel (the secondary fuel, which is a liquid fuel, e.g., diesel, see [0028-0029]) and a second fuel (the primary fuel, which is a gaseous fuel, e.g., natural gas, see [0028-0029]) having a lower calorific value per unit volume than the first fuel (because natural gas is a gaseous fuel that has less density comparing to diesel), the gas turbine control method comprising:
a step of determining a supply state of the second fuel to the combustor (per [0044] and Fig. 5, the controller 116 determines 106 receives an insufficient amount of the primary fuel from source 108 when a pressure drop of the primary fuel is measured by sensor 110’);
a step of calculating (the controller 116 determines the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 in Fig. 5 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106 in order to maintain 106 to be operated at a desired power/torque output, see [0031, 0044-0045 and 0050]), in a case where the supply state where at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined (the insufficient amount of the primary fuel is determined by measuring the pressure drop of the primary fuel, and such insufficient amount of primary fuel is caused by at least partially clogged at filter 504, [0044]), a shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) to be supplied to the combustor (in the 106) corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the filter 504 is at least partially clogged, per [0044], a fuel co-firing ratio is calculated by controller 116 for 106 to be operated at the desired output/toque only using the secondary fuel, per [0050], and said fuel co-firing ratio is represented by 100% secondary fuel); and
a step of outputting (the controller 116 controls the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, the secondary fuel pump 508, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) a fuel flow rate command value (the value that controls the opening of the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the filter 504 is at least partially clogged per [0044], the controller 116 closes the primary fuel valve 506, operates the secondary fuel pump 508, and open the secondary fuel valve 510 in order to only use the secondary fuel to operate 106, per [0045 and 0050], and due to the time lags caused by system responding time, e.g., 506, 508, and 510 in Fig. 5, and/or piping distance, e.g., distance between 506/510 to manifold 501 in Fig. 5, the fuel co-firing ratio represented by 100% secondary fuel is not obtained in the manifold 501 until the adjusted flow rate of the primary fuel and the secondary fuel reach the manifold 501; as evidenced by Bhatnagar’s [0052] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Yeung teaches the invention as claimed: A gas turbine control program for (saved in controller 116, Fig. 1 and [0030 and 0034]) of controlling a gas turbine (106) including a combustor (connected to the fuel manifold 501, see Fig. 5) capable of generating a combustion gas for driving the gas turbine (per [0027 and 0031 ] and Fig. 1, 106 is a gas turbine engine providing a desired output or a torque via a drive shaft) by co-firing a first fuel (the secondary fuel, which is a liquid fuel, e.g., diesel, see [0028-0029]) and a second fuel (the primary fuel, which is a gaseous fuel, e.g., natural gas, see [0028-0029]) having a lower calorific value per unit volume than the first fuel (because natural gas is a gaseous fuel that has less density comparing to diesel), the gas turbine control program (saved in controller 116) causing a computer device (the controller 116) to execute:
a step of determining a supply state of the second fuel to the combustor (per [0044] and Fig. 5, the controller 116 determines 106 receives an insufficient amount of the primary fuel from source 108 when a pressure drop of the primary fuel is measured by sensor 110’);
a step of calculating (the controller 116 determines the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 in Fig. 5 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106 in order to maintain 106 to be operated at a desired power/torque output, see [0031, 0044-0045 and 0050]), in a case where the supply state where at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined (the insufficient amount of the primary fuel is determined by measuring the pressure drop of the primary fuel, and such insufficient amount of primary fuel is caused by at least partially clogged at filter 504, [0044]), a shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) to be supplied to the combustor (in the 106) corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the filter 504 is at least partially clogged, per [0044], a fuel co-firing ratio is calculated by controller 116 for 106 to be operated at the desired output/toque only using the secondary fuel, per [0050], and said fuel co-firing ratio is represented by 100% secondary fuel); and
a step of outputting (the controller 116 controls the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, the secondary fuel pump 508, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) a fuel flow rate command value (the value that controls the opening of the primary fuel vale 506 and 506’, and the secondary fuel vale 510, Fig. 5 and [0045]) corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of the secondary fuel from supply 112 that replaces the primary fuel to be used in the 106, Fig. 5) before the fuel co-firing ratio is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the filter 504 is at least partially clogged per [0044], the controller 116 closes the primary fuel valve 506, operates the secondary fuel pump 508, and open the secondary fuel valve 510 in order to only use the secondary fuel to operate 106, per [0045 and 0050], and due to the time lags caused by system responding time, e.g., 506, 508, and 510 in Fig. 5, and/or piping distance, e.g., distance between 506/510 to manifold 501 in Fig. 5, the fuel co-firing ratio represented by 100% secondary fuel is not obtained in the manifold 501 until the adjusted flow rate of the primary fuel and the secondary fuel reach the manifold 501; as evidenced by Bhatnagar’s [0052] and Fig. 7).
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stammen 20210095601 as evidenced by Bhatnagar 20100229524.
Regarding claim 1, Stammen teaches the invention as claimed: A gas turbine control device (48, Fig. 1) that controls a gas turbine (10, Fig. 1) including a combustor (combustor in Fig. 1) capable of generating a combustion gas for driving the gas turbine (turbine part 16) by co-firing (per [0016-0017 and 0021], the combustor is able to combust fuel 22, fuel 20, or a combination) a first fuel (fuel 22, which is natural gas per [0016]) and a second fuel (fuel 20, which is a synthetic gas generated from a refinery or chemical process per [0016]) having a lower calorific value per unit volume than the first fuel (fuel 22, which is natural gas per [0016]), the gas turbine control device comprising:
a supply state determination unit (the part of the controller 48 that detects the fuel 20 is interrupted, see 92 in Fig. 3 and [0029 and 0022]) that determines a supply state of the second fuel (the interruption event of fuel 20, [0019]) to the combustor (combustor in Fig. 10);
a shutoff-time fuel flow rate calculation unit (the part of the controller 48 that calculates the amount of fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 in Fig. 1, see [0021] and 96 and 98 in Fig. 3) that calculates, in a case where the supply state where at least a part of the second fuel to the combustor is shut off is determined (after the interruption event of fuel 20 is detected, which indicated at least a part of fuel 20 is hindered or stalled, see [0019, 0022 and 0029] and Fig. 3), a shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 in Fig. 1) to be supplied to the combustor (combustor in Fig. 1) corresponding to a fuel co-firing ratio (represented by the amount of fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 in Fig. 1 and the amount of fuel 22) after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the interruption event of fuel 20 is detected, which indicated at least a part of fuel 20 is hindered or stalled, see [0019, 0022 and 0029] and Fig. 3); and
a fuel command value output unit (the part of controller 48 that the valves 38, 40, and 42 in Fig. 1) that outputs a fuel flow rate command value (the value that controls the opening of the valves 38, 40, and 42 in Fig. 1) corresponding to the shutoff-time fuel flow rate (the amount of fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 in Fig. 1) before the fuel co-firing ratio (represented by the amount of fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 in Fig. 1 and the amount of fuel 22) is obtained after the at least a part of the second fuel is shut off (after the interruption event of fuel 20 is detected, which indicated at least a part of fuel 20 is hindered or stalled, see [0019, 0022 and 0029] and Fig. 3, the controller 48 opens and regulates valves 38 and 42 in order to control the amount of fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 in Fig. 1, see [0023] and 94, 96, and 98 in Fig. 3, and due to the time lags caused by system responding time, e.g., 38, 42 in Fig. 1, and/or piping distance, e.g., distance between 18 to combustor in Fig. 1, the fuel co-firing ratio represented by the amount of fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 in Fig. 1 and the amount of fuel 22 is not obtained in the combustor until the fuel provided by the fuel flow maintenance system 18 and the fuel 22 reach combustor in Fig. 1; as evidenced by Bhatnagar’s [0052] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Stammen further teaches wherein the first fuel is natural gas (fuel 22, which is natural gas per [0016]), and the second fuel is hydrogen gas (fuel 20, which is a synthetic gas generated from a refinery or chemical process per [0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights