DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 7/20/2026 wherein claims 3 and 18-21 are canceled and claims 1-2, 4-17, and 22-26 are presented for examination. The Office Action mailed 8/27/2026 is withdrawn.
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 .
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-2 and 4-17, drawn to a mixing system for a recirculated exhaust gas stream and air.
Group II, claim(s) 22-26, drawn to a method of mixing two gas streams having a faster inlet velocity than an exit velocity.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a mixing chamber, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 9453460. See International Search Report..
The reference above was indicated as an “X” reference in the International Search Report; therefore claim 1 in its current form lacks novelty. The existence of an anticipatory reference demonstrating that the independent claim lacks novelty establishes that the groups do not relate to a single general inventive concept. As set forth in MPEP1850:
The expression "special technical features" is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a "contribution" over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a "special technical feature," should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. For example, a document discovered in the international search shows that there is a presumption of lack of novelty or inventive step in a main claim, so that there may be no technical relationship left over the prior art among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept.
During a telephone conversation with Michael Wasco on 9/1/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-2 and 4-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 22-26 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “16” in Figure 1.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the cross section of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct or the cross section of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct” (Claim 16, lines 1-3 and Claim 17, lines 1-3) is believed to be in error for - - a cross section of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct - -.
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 1-2 and 4-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow ratio" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-17 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above due to their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the cross section of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct and the cross section of the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening are equal to the fraction of the flow ratio of the gas mixture" in lines 1-3. It is unclear what parameter (length, diameter, area, etc.) of the cross section is required to be equal to the fraction.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bent portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream flow direction" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the mixed gas stream outlet duct" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the mixed gas stream outlet duct" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the mixed gas stream outlet duct" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 4-5, 12,16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorskiy et al. (WO 2010/142560).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Zagorskiy teaches (Figures 1-5) a system (see Figures 2-5) for mixing a recirculated exhaust gas stream (11) with air (44) to obtain a gas mixture (15) to be fed to a gas turbine (see title and abstract), the system (see Figures 2-5) comprising:
a mixing chamber (36) having a first side (a top side of 36; see Figures 2-5), a second side (a forward side of 36; see Figures 2-5), and a third side (a bottom side of 36; see Figures 2-5), the second side (the forward side of 36; see Figures 2-5) intersecting with the first side (the top side of 36; see Figures 2-5), and the third side (the bottom side of 36; see Figures 2-5) opposing the first side (the top side of 36; see Figures 2-5), the mixing chamber (36) comprising:
a recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening (at 12) on the first side of the mixing chamber (at a top side of 36; see Figures 2-5),
a fresh air stream inlet opening (at 10) on the second side of the mixing chamber (at a forward side of 36; see Figures 2-5), and
a mixed gas stream outlet opening (the outlet of 24) on the third side of the mixing chamber (at bottom side of 36; see Figures 2-5),
wherein the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening (at 12) is in line with the mixed gas stream outlet opening (the outlet of 24) to define a linear path (see Figures 2-5) of flow through the mixing chamber (36) from the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening (at 12) to the mixed gas stream outlet opening (the outlet of 24).
Zagorskiy does not teach the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening has a cross section that is a fraction of the cross section of the mixed gas stream outlet opening, wherein the fraction is equal to from 70% to 130% of the fraction of the flow ratio of the gas mixture to be fed to the gas turbine which is composed of recirculated exhaust gas.
Zagorskiy does teach, however, that the flow cross-section for the recirculation flow may be adjusted to ensure optimal flow conditions, particularly with regard to the introduction into the compressor (Paragraph 0039) and that adjustable guide elements can be positioned in the mixing chamber to influence or control the flow behavior of fresh intake air and/or recirculated exhaust air and/or the mixed airflow (Paragraph 0028). Therefore, the cross-sectional openings of the mixing chamber are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve 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 adjusting the openings leads to ensuring optimal flow conditions (Paragraph 0039).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the size of the flow cross-sections of the mixing chamber can be adjusted, were disclosed in the prior art by Zagorskiy, 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 size of the mixing chamber openings as taught by Zagorskiy in order to ensure optimal flow conditions. 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).
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 2, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy does not teach the cross section of said recirculated exhaust gas stream duct and of the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening are equal to the fraction of the flow ratio of the gas mixture to be fed to the gas turbine that comprises recirculated exhaust gas..
Zagorskiy does teach, however, that the flow cross-section for the recirculation flow may be adjusted to ensure optimal flow conditions, particularly with regard to the introduction into the compressor (Paragraph 0039) and that adjustable guide elements can be positioned in the mixing chamber to influence or control the flow behavior of fresh intake air and/or recirculated exhaust air and/or the mixed airflow (Paragraph 0028). Therefore, the cross-sectional openings of the mixing chamber are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve 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 adjusting the openings leads to ensuring optimal flow conditions (Paragraph 0039).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the size of the flow cross-sections of the mixing chamber can be adjusted, were disclosed in the prior art by Zagorskiy, 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 size of the mixing chamber openings as taught by Zagorskiy in order to ensure optimal flow conditions. 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).
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 4, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the third side (the bottom side of 36; see Figure 3) of the mixing chamber (36) is parallel to (see Figures 2-5) the first side (the top side of 36; see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the first side (the top side of 36; see Figure 3) and the second side (the front side of 36; see Figure 3) of the mixing chamber (36) are orthogonal (see Figures 2-5).
Regarding Claim 12, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the fresh air stream inlet opening (at 12) is arranged symmetrically with respect to a symmetry plane (annotated below) dividing the mixing chamber (36) into two halves that are parallel to the recirculated exhaust gas stream flow direction (at 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the cross section of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct (at the top of 36; see Figure 3) or the cross section of said recirculated exhaust gas stream duct (at the top of 36; see Figure 3) and the cross section of the mixed gas outlet duct (at 24) have the same shape (both ducts are rectangular shaped; see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy further teaches (Figures 1-5) wherein the cross section of said recirculated exhaust gas stream duct (at the top of 36) or the cross section of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct (at the top of 36) and the cross section of the mixed gas stream outlet duct (at 24) have a rectangular section (see Figure 3).
Claims 6-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorskiy et al. (WO 2010/142560) in view of Lockyer et al. (US 2023/0407787).
Regarding Claim 6, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct comprises a bent portion and a straight portion, and wherein the straight portion is arranged between the bent portion and the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening.
Lockyer teaches (Figures 1-15) wherein a recirculated exhaust gas stream duct (at 1510) comprises a bent portion (annotated below) and a straight portion (annotated below), wherein the straight portion (annotated below) is arranged between the bent portion (annotated below) and a recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening (annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct comprise a bent portion and a straight portion, the straight portion being arranged between the bent portion and the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening, as taught by Lockyer, in order to slow the flow of recirculated exhaust gas and to match the dimensions of the open end of the second duct in order to maximize the mixing potential within the mixer box (see Paragraph 0064 of Lockyer).
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the recirculated exhaust gas duct of Zagorskiy) for another (in this case, the recirculated exhaust gas duct of Lockyer) to obtain predictable results (in this case, deliver exhaust gas to a mixing duct) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
PNG
media_image2.png
603
1025
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein said recirculated exhaust gas stream duct has a bent portion that is bent at 90 degrees.
Lockyer teaches (Figures 1-15) wherein said recirculated exhaust gas stream duct has a bent portion that is bent at 90 degrees (see annotation above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct have a bent portion that is bent 90 degrees, as taught by Lockyer, in order to slow the flow of recirculated exhaust gas and to match the dimensions of the open end of the second duct in order to maximize the mixing potential within the mixer box (see Paragraph 0064 of Lockyer).
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the recirculated exhaust gas duct of Zagorskiy) for another (in this case, the recirculated exhaust gas duct of Lockyer) to obtain predictable results (in this case, deliver exhaust gas to a mixing duct) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 8, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the recirculated exhaust stream duct has a bent portion bent at a bend radius to form a concave side and a straight portion, and wherein the straight portion has a length between the bent portion and the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening that is shorter than the bend radius of the concave side.
Lockyer teaches (Figures 1-15) the recirculated exhaust stream duct (1510) has a bent portion (annotated above) bent at a bend radius to form a concave side (see annotation above) and a straight portion (annotated above), and wherein the straight portion (annotated above) has a length between the bent portion (annotated above) and the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening (annotated above) that is shorter than the bend radius of the concave side (see annotation above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have the recirculated exhaust stream duct has a bent portion bent at a bend radius to form a concave side and a straight portion, and wherein the straight portion has a length between the bent portion and the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet opening that is shorter than the bend radius of the concave side, as taught by Lockyer, in order to slow the flow of recirculated exhaust gas and to match the dimensions of the open end of the second duct in order to maximize the mixing potential within the mixer box (see Paragraph 0064 of Lockyer).
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the recirculated exhaust gas duct of Zagorskiy) for another (in this case, the recirculated exhaust gas duct of Lockyer) to obtain predictable results (in this case, deliver exhaust gas to a mixing duct) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 15, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet duct is coaxial and concentric to the mixed gas stream outlet duct.
Lockyer teaches (Figures 1-15) an inlet duct (at the opening for 215) is coaxial and concentric to (see Figure 15) the mixed gas stream outlet duct (at 1520). Lockyer further teaches (Figures 1-15) that the inlet duct (at the opening for 215) may be the flow path for recirculated exhaust gas (see Paragraph 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have the recirculated exhaust gas stream inlet duct be coaxial and concentric to the mixed gas stream outlet duct, as taught by Lockyer, in order to have the mixer be a cuboid structure that extends along the X axis between the two open upstream and downstream ends of a first duct (Paragraph 0040 of Lockyer).
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the mixing chamber as taught by Zagorskiy) for another (in this case, the mixing chamber as taught by Lockyer) to obtain predictable results (in this case, deliver a mixture of exhaust gases and inlet air to a gas turbine engine) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorskiy et al. (WO 2010/142560) in view of Han (US 6,537,490).
Regarding Claim 9, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy does not teach, as discussed so far, a splitter arranged inside a bent portion of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct, wherein the splitter divides the bent portion of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct into at least two bent sub-portions.
Han teaches (Figures 1-10) a splitter (186) that is arranged inside an exhaust gas stream duct bent portion (at 168), said splitter (186) dividing the exhaust gas stream duct bent portion (168) into at least two bent sub-portions (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have at least one splitter be arranged inside said exhaust gas stream duct bent portion, said splitter dividing the exhaust gas stream duct bent portion into bent sub-portions, as taught by Han, in order to redirect the flow into or out of a fan unit to provide excellent turning performance including uniform flow with minimum pressure loss (Column 2, lines 3-8 of Han).
Regarding Claim 10, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy does not teach, as discussed so far, two or more splitters arranged inside the bent portion of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct, the two or more splitters dividing the bent portion of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct into three or more sub-portions, each having a center of curvature that is the same as the center of curvature of the bent portion of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct.
Han teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein two or more splitters (186) are arranged inside said exhaust gas stream duct bent portion (168), said splitters (186) dividing the exhaust gas stream duct bent portion (168) into three or more sub-portions (see Figure 5), with the same center of curvature the bent portion of the exhaust gas stream duct (168; see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have two or more splitters arranged inside said exhaust gas stream duct bent portion, said splitters dividing the exhaust gas stream duct bent portion into three or more sub-portions, with the same center of curvature as the exhaust gas stream duct bent portion, as taught by Han, in order to redirect the flow into or out of a fan unit to provide excellent turning performance including uniform flow with minimum pressure loss (Column 2, lines 3-8 of Han).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorskiy et al. (WO 2010/142560) in view of Han (US 6,537,490) and Merchant et al. (US 8,087,491).
Regarding Claim 11, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy, as discussed so far, two or more splitters arranged inside the bent portion of the recirculated exhaust gas stream duct, wherein the two or more splitters are equally distanced amongst each other.
Han teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein two or more splitters (186) are arranged inside said exhaust gas stream duct bent portion (168).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have two or more splitters arranged inside said exhaust gas stream duct bent portion, as taught by Han, in order to redirect the flow into or out of a fan unit to provide excellent turning performance including uniform flow with minimum pressure loss (Column 2, lines 3-8 of Han). Zagorskiy in view of Han does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the two or more splitters are equally distanced amongst each other.
Merchant teaches (Figures 1-14) wherein two or more splitters (18) are equally distanced amongst each other (see Column 3, lines 23-30 and Figures 3-4, 6, 8, and 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy in view of Han to have the two or more splitters be equally distanced amongst each other, as taught by Merchant, in order to reduce turning losses, i.e. pressure drops, in the elbow and to reduce the amount of sound attenuating material (Column 3, lines 23-30 of Merchant).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorskiy et al. (WO 2010/142560) in view of Owen (US 2018/0172294).
Regarding Claim 13, Zagorskiy teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy further teaches (Figures 1-5) a filter (31) covering the fresh air stream inlet opening (at 10, the mixing device can be arranged at various locations including upstream of the air filter, in area 39, or in area 38; see Paragraph 0035). Zagorskiy does not teach that the filter is porous.
Owen teaches (Figures 1-8) the use of an inlet air filter upstream of a gas turbine engine (see Figure 1), wherein the inlet air filters are porous (preferably made of the class EPA; see Paragraph 0015 and claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy to have the filter be porous, as taught by Owen, in order to capture salt crystals that can be formed when water droplets evaporate (Paragraph 0015 of Owen).
Regarding Claim 14, Zagorskiyin teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Zagorskiy further teaches (Figures 1-5) a filter (31) covering the fresh air stream inlet opening (at 10, the mixing device can be arranged at various locations including upstream of the air filter, in area 39, or in area 38; see Paragraph 0035). Zagorskiy does not teach that the filter is an EPA filter.
Owen teaches (Figures 1-8) the use of an inlet air filter upstream of a gas turbine engine (see Figure 1), wherein the inlet air filters are preferably made of the class EPA (see Paragraph 0015 and claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zagorskiy in view of Owen to have the filter be an EPA filter group, as taught by Owen, in order to capture salt crystals that can be formed when water droplets evaporate (Paragraph 0015 of Owen).
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
