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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1, lines 2-3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fuel other than hydrogen” should be - -an other fuel other than hydrogen- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, lines 6-7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a hydrogen co-combustion rate” should be - - a hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasivuni (US 20230288067) in view of Naik et al (US 20230266009).
Regarding claim 1, Sadasivuni teaches an operation method for a gas turbine (Figure 1; 10) including a combustor (Figure 1; 16) that has a main nozzle (Figure 2; 48B which is a premixing nozzle, Paragraph 0003) and a pilot nozzle (Figure 2; 50 which is a diffusion nozzle, Paragraph 0003) and that is capable of using, as fuel, hydrogen and an other fuel other than hydrogen (Functional Language, Paragraph 0017).
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein a ratio of a hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle to a hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is larger in a second ratio during an operation at a high hydrogen co-combustion rate, in which a hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor is higher than during an operation at a low hydrogen co-combustion rate, than in a first ratio during the operation at the low hydrogen co-combustion rate.
However, Naik teaches an operation method for a gas turbine (Figure 1; 10) including a combustor (Figure 1; 14) that has a main nozzle (Figure 6; 73A) and a pilot nozzle (Figure 6; 88, Paragraph 0065) and that is capable of using, as fuel, hydrogen and an other fuel other than hydrogen (The hydrogen and natural gas in Paragraph 0065),
wherein a ratio (The ratio of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the pilot to main nozzle) of a hydrogen co-combustion rate (The hydrogen co-combustion rate of the pilot nozzle) of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle to a hydrogen co-combustion rate (The hydrogen co-combustion rate of the main nozzle) of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is larger in a second ratio (The ratio during a high hydrogen co-combustion rate which is 60% for the pilot nozzle and 50% for the main nozzles, Paragraph 0056. This ratio is 6/5) during an operation at a high hydrogen co-combustion rate (The operation when the hydrogen co-combustion rate is more than or equal to 50%, Paragraph 0056), in which a hydrogen co-combustion rate (The hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel from both the pilot and main nozzles) of the fuel supplied to the combustor is higher than during an operation at a low hydrogen co-combustion rate (The ratio during a low hydrogen co-combustion rate which is 20% for the pilot nozzle and 20% for the main nozzles, Paragraph 0056), than in a first ratio (The operation when the hydrogen co-combustion rate is less than 50%, Paragraph 0056) during the operation at the low hydrogen co-combustion rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein a ratio of a hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle to a hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is larger in a second ratio during an operation at a high hydrogen co-combustion rate, in which a hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor is higher than during an operation at a low hydrogen co-combustion rate, than in a first ratio during the operation at the low hydrogen co-combustion rate as taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, the modification uses the nozzles of Sadasivuni as described in Paragraph 0065 of Naik).
Regarding claim 2, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein the second ratio increases as the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor increases.
However, Naik teaches wherein the second ratio increases as the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor increases (When going from the first ratio to the second ratio, the second ratio increases as the hydrogen co-combustion rate increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein the second ratio increases as the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor increases as taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle increases as the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor increases.
However, Naik teaches wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle increases as the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor increases (When going from the first ratio to the second ratio, the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the pilot nozzle increases as the hydrogen co-combustion rate from the pilot and main nozzles increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle increases as the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor increases as taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, an increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle to an increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor is larger than an increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle to the increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor.
However, Naik teaches wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, an increase rate (The increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the pilot nozzle is 40%) of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle to an increase rate (The increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the pilot nozzle is 40% and the main nozzle is 30%, so that the increase rate is the average of the two which is 35%)of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor is larger than an increase rate (The increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the main nozzle is 30%) of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle to the increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, an increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle to an increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor is larger than an increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle to the increase rate of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor as taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is a constant value regardless of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor.
However, Naik teaches wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is a constant value (The high hydrogen co-combustion rate of the main nozzle is 100%, Paragraph 0065) regardless of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein, during the operation at the high hydrogen co-combustion rate, the hydrogen co- combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is a constant value regardless of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel supplied to the combustoras taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein an upper limit value of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle is 100%.
However, Naik teaches wherein an upper limit value (The upper limit of the high hydrogen co-combustion rate of the pilot nozzle is 100%, Paragraph 0065 states “In some examples, the turbine engine 10 (FIG. 1) can initiate combustion with the fuel-air mixer 35 using a natural gas fuel and transition to a 100% hydrogen fuel at max power.”) of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle is 100%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein an upper limit value of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the pilot nozzle is 100% as taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein the first ratio is 1 in at least a part of a period during the operation at the low hydrogen co-combustion rate.
However, Naik teaches wherein the first ratio is 1 in at least a part of a period (The first ratio is 1 during at least a part of a period of the operation at the low hydrogen co-combustion rate) during the operation at the low hydrogen co-combustion rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein the first ratio is 1 in at least a part of a period during the operation at the low hydrogen co-combustion rate as taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni does not disclose wherein an upper limit value of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is larger during a partial load operation of the gas turbine than during a rated operation of the gas turbine.
However, Naik teaches wherein an upper limit value of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is larger during a partial load operation of the gas turbine than during a rated operation of the gas turbine (Paragraph 0099 states embodiments can be combined. Paragraph 0065 states “a natural gas fuel can be supplied along the second fuel flow path 92; or a fuel blend of 0-60% hydrogen can be supplied along the second fuel flow path 92…In some examples, the turbine engine 10 (FIG. 1) can operate with a high-percentage hydrogen fuel at low power levels and with a natural gas fuel at high power levels”, so that at low power levels or a partial load operation, the upper limit value is 100% while at high power levels or a rated operation, the upper limit value is less than 60%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni wherein an upper limit value of the hydrogen co-combustion rate of the fuel injected from the main nozzle is larger during a partial load operation of the gas turbine than during a rated operation of the gas turbine as taught by and suggested by Naik in order to decrease NOx emissions (Paragraph 0006, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni further discloses wherein the combustor includes a main combustion burner (Figure 2; 47, 48B) having the main nozzle and a pilot combustion burner (Figure 2; 50) having the pilot nozzle,
the main combustion burner is a pre-mixed combustion type burner (Paragraph 0003), and
the pilot combustion burner is a diffusion combustion type burner (Paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasivuni in view of Naik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajimura et al (US 20170219211)
Regarding claim 10, Sadasivuni in view of Naik teaches the invention as claimed.
Sadasivuni in view of Naik does not teach wherein the pilot nozzle has a flow path of water and is configured to inject the water.
However, Kajimura teaches wherein a pilot nozzle (Figure 7; 121) has a flow path of water (The flow path for Figure 7; W) and is configured to inject the water (Functional Language, the flow path for water injects water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Sadasivuni in view of Naik wherein the pilot nozzle has a flow path of water and is configured to inject the water as taught by and suggested by Kajimura in order to provide a pilot nozzle with higher versatility (Paragraph 0115, The modification adds a water flow path in the pilot nozzle).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights