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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5-6, 18-25 and 27 are currently being examined.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 18, 20, 24-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pieussergues et al. 20090151357 in view of Sandelis et al. 20140090382, Dye et al. 20070160759, Chatterjee et al. 20220154335 and Rickerby et al. 20160083833.
Regarding independent claim 1, Pieussergues teaches a mixer assembly (Fig. 2) for a gas turbine engine ([0031] describes combustor shown in Fig. 1 with a mixer assembly, the combustor situated at the outlet of a compressor and is of a turbomachine such as an aircraft turbojet or turboprop engine, i.e., a gas turbine engine), the mixer assembly comprising:
a housing (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) including a passage (74 Fig. 2) formed therein and a passage wall (72 Fig. 2) facing the passage, the passage including a venturi (56 Fig. 2) having a converging section (labeled in annotated Fig. 2), a diverging section (labeled in annotated Fig. 2), and a throat ([0039] describes venturi 56 having a throat);
injecting fuel into the passage ([0002] describes an injection of fuel and [0003] describes fuel ejected by the injector into the venturi passage);
an air inlet (in Fig. 2 airflow shown by arrow 48 flows into inlet of swirler 52) for introducing air to flow through the air inlet into the passage (airflow 48 flows through air inlet of 52 and into 74 of venturi 56 in Fig. 2), the air inlet being upstream of the venturi (air inlet of 52 is upstream of venturi 56 in Fig. 2),
wherein at least a portion of the passage wall is located downstream of a fuel injector (passage wall 72 is downstream of end of fuel injector 36 in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pieussergues does not explicitly teach a fuel injection port connected to a fuel source and configured to inject hydrocarbon fuel into the passage, and is silent regarding wherein at least a portion of the passage wall is a coated passage wall, the coated passage wall including the passage wall of the diverging section and the passage wall of the converging section, the coated passage wall being (i) located downstream of the fuel injection port and (ii) coated with a catalytic metal layer of electroplated platinum that, under fuel-air mixture temperature and pressure conditions present in the venturi, catalyzes formation of filamentary coke on the coated passage wall, the catalytic metal layer being electroplated to have a surface roughness from eighty microinches to one hundred fifty microinches and a thickness from five microns to fifty microns.
Sandelis teaches, with reference to Fig. 1, a mixer assembly for a combustor similar to that of Pieussergues. Sandelis teaches a fuel injection port (fuel injection orifice 52 in Fig. 2, i.e., fuel injection port, at an end of fuel injector 28) fluidly connected to a fuel source (a conically shaped sheet of fuel with cone angle B extending from 52 is shown in Fig. 2 and described in [0052] which implies a fuel source fluidly connected to fuel injection port 52) and configured to inject a fuel (sheet of fuel shown by flow arrows extending from 52 in Fig. 2) into a passage including a venturi (as seen in Fig. 1, 28 with head end 30, which includes 52, is configured to inject fuel into a passage with a venturi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the invention of Pieussergues a fuel injection port fluidly connected to a fuel source and configured to inject the fuel into the passage as taught by Sandelis as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . . . [W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR at 1395-66 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). As modified, the passage wall of the diverging section and the passage wall of the converging section of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis are both (i) located downstream of the fuel injection port since the passage wall of the venturi is downstream of the fuel injection port which is at the end of the fuel injector.
Pieussergues in view of Sandelis does not explicitly teach the fuel being hydrocarbon fuel, and is silent regarding wherein at least a portion of the passage wall is a coated passage wall, the coated passage wall including the passage wall of the diverging section and the passage wall of the converging section, the coated passage wall being (ii) coated with a catalytic metal layer of electroplated platinum that, under fuel-air mixture temperature and pressure conditions present in the venturi, catalyzes formation of filamentary coke on the coated passage wall, the catalytic metal layer being electroplated to have a surface roughness from eighty microinches to one hundred fifty microinches and a thickness from five microns to fifty microns.
However, Pieussergues does teach that [0004] soot is deposited and coke is formed on the interior surface of the venturi which is disadvantageous since [0005] the deposits of soot and coke may form hot spots which shorten the life of the venturi, per [0006] these deposits may also disrupt the airflow through the venturi, the injection of fuel and the mixing of the fuel with the stream of air from the primary swirler, and [0007] the presence of coke and of soot also increases the production of harmful gases which are discharged into the atmosphere. Pieussergues therefore teaches coking occurs in the venturi under fuel-air mixture temperature and pressure conditions present in the venturi during operation.
Dye teaches fuel instability refers to the formation of undesired deposits that occur when hydrocarbon fuels are at elevated temperatures with two distinct mechanisms occurring within two overlapping temperature ranges with the first being “coking” which is an increase in a formation rate of coke deposits which may occur above about 345 degrees C; coke formation can be caused by hydrocarbon pyrolysis. The second mechanism may occur between about 105-345 degrees C and can involve oxidation reactions that may lead to polymerization and/or carbonaceous gum deposits [0002]. Dye teaches a layer of platinum, sometimes referred to as a platinum coke barrier coating (CBC), has been used on surfaces that are exposed to hydrocarbon fluids to facilitate reducing deposition of carbonaceous deposits [0003].
Dye teaches in [0008] an object 10 which may be a fuel nozzle in a gas turbine engine, with 10 having a wall 12 with a surface 13 which is coated with a coating system 14 and having contact with a hydrocarbon fuel at elevated temperatures. Coating system 14 may facilitate preventing or reducing the formation and/or adhesion of carbonaceous deposits that would otherwise adhere to wall surface 13 if maintained at temperatures of about 105 to about 345 degrees C [0008]. Wall 12 may be steel and/or corrosion-resistant alloys of nickel and/or chromium which may facilitate formation of fuel thermal decomposition products such as gum and coke in the hydrocarbon fuel [0009]. Coating system 14 may be a platinum layer 18 directly coated on wall surface 13, coating system 14 being continuous and completely covering all of wall surface 13 that would otherwise contact the hydrocarbon fuel [0010]. Platinum layer 18 may facilitate catalyzing the hydrocarbon fuel that eventually becomes sufficiently hot to form carbonaceous gum deposits to facilitate rapid formation of gum substances such that in a flowing fuel system, the gum substances grow too quickly to allow them to adhere to wall 12, rather gum substances may be found in the form of very fine particulate within the fuel [0012]. The platinum layer 18 is catalytic and capable of catalyzing formation of filamentary coke on the coated passage wall under fuel-air mixture temperature and pressure conditions present in the fuel nozzle.
Platinum layer 18 may include a surface roughness of about 1.0 micrometer or less but may have other surface roughnesses per [0010]. A surface roughness of 1.0 micrometer is about 39.37 microinches. Platinum layer 18 may include any suitable thickness capable of performing the functions described herein, which is to facilitate reducing deposition of carbonaceous deposits on the coated surface, which may depend, for example, on a surface roughness of object wall surface 13 per [0013].
Therefore, Dye teaches it was known to use hydrocarbon fuel in a gas turbine engine, and Dye teaches a coated passage wall 12 of a fuel nozzle 10 with the coating 18 on a wall surface 13 exposed to hydrocarbon fuel, the coated passage wall 12 being (ii) coated with a catalytic metal layer of platinum that, under fuel-air mixture temperature and pressure conditions present in the fuel nozzle, catalyzes formation of filamentary coke on the coated passage wall per [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis to have the fuel be a hydrocarbon fuel as taught by Dye as a known fuel suitable for use in a gas turbine engine, and to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis to have at least a portion of the passage wall be a coated passage wall, the coated passage wall including the passage wall of the diverging section and the passage wall of the converging section, the coated passage wall being (ii) coated with a catalytic metal layer of platinum that, under fuel-air mixture temperature and pressure conditions present in the venturi, catalyzes formation of filamentary coke on the coated passage wall as taught by Dye because the passage wall of the diverging section and the passage wall of the converging section each have a part of the surface of the venturi which is exposed to the hydrocarbon fuel under fuel-air mixture temperature and pressure conditions present in the venturi and is prone to coking per Pieussergues such that having the catalytic platinum coating on the surface of the venturi may facilitate preventing or reducing the formation and/or adhesion of carbonaceous deposits that would otherwise adhere to the surface.
However, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis and Dye is silent regarding the catalytic metal layer of platinum is of electroplated platinum, the catalytic metal layer being electroplated to have a surface roughness from eighty microinches to one hundred fifty microinches and a thickness from five microns to fifty microns.
Chatterjee teaches applying a protective coating to a substrate 102 made of a metal alloy and that substrate 102 can be or include an aerospace component, part, portion, or surface thereof, rotary equipment, or any other component or part that can benefit from the protective coating such as a fuel nozzle ([0014] and [0015]). Layer 104 of the coating may be produced by electroplating platinum on substrate 102 per [0017] and as seen in Fig. 1, 104 is applied directly to substrate 102. Layer 104 may be about 500 nm, i.e., .05 μm, to about 50 μm per [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis and Dye to have the catalytic metal layer of platinum be electroplated platinum as taught by Chatterjee that electroplating was a known technique in applying platinum to a fuel nozzle and was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. "[T]he claimed subject matter may involve [] the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement." KSR at 1396.
It would also be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the electroplated platinum and arrive at the claimed range of five microns to fifty microns for the prevention/reduction of coking and carbonaceous deposits on the passage wall since Dye teaches that platinum layer may include any suitable thickness capable of performing the prevention/reduction of coking and carbonaceous deposits on the passage wall and Chatterjee teaches a thickness range of electroplated platinum is from .05 microns to fifty microns.
Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye and Chatterjee is silent regarding the catalytic metal layer being electroplated to have a surface roughness from eighty microinches to one hundred fifty microinches.
Rickerby teaches applying a coating to a metallic superalloy article for a gas turbine engine per [0098] which includes a metal layer of electroplated platinum being electroplated (per [0087] samples of nickel based superalloy CMSX4 were electroplated with platinum) to have a surface roughness (per [0087] the samples had a surface roughness Sa of 1.6 μm, 2.6 μm and of 3 μm which are respectively about 63 microinches, 102 microinches and 118 microinches) and the electroplated platinum having a thickness of 12.5 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye and Chatterjee and arrive at the catalytic metal layer being electroplated to have a surface roughness of 102 microinches or 118 microinches which are in the claimed range from eighty microinches to one hundred fifty microinches as a known and achievable surface roughness of electroplated platinum as taught by Rickerby and therefore recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. "[T]he claimed subject matter may involve [] the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement." KSR at 1396.
Lastly, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the catalytic metal layer has a thickness that is from five microns to twenty-five microns (five microns to twenty-five microns falls within the thickness range taught by Chatterjee of about .05 microns to about fifty microns).
Regarding claim 6, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the catalytic metal layer has a thickness that is from five microns to ten microns (five microns to ten microns falls within the thickness range taught by Chatterjee of about .05 microns to about fifty microns).
Regarding claim 18, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above and Pieussergues further teaches a gas turbine engine ([0031] describes a combustor shown in Fig. 1 with a mixer assembly, the combustor situated at the outlet of a compressor and is of a turbomachine such as an aircraft turbojet or turboprop engine, i.e., a gas turbine engine) comprising:
a combustor (assembly in Fig. 1; [0002] describes a mixture of air and fuel that is to be injected into and then burnt in the combustion chamber, i.e., burning fuel mixed with air is combustion which produces combustion products) including a combustion chamber (10 Fig. 1, [0031]); and
the mixer assembly of claim 1 configured to inject a mixture of air and fuel into the combustion chamber ([0033] describes airflow passes into injection system 32 which includes the mixer and the airflow is mixed with the fuel carried by the injector and sprayed into the combustion chamber), and
Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches as discussed above in claim 1, the fuel is hydrocarbon fuel.
Regarding claim 20, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above and Pieussergues further teaches the mixer assembly includes a heat shield (60 in Fig. 2 in light of instant application Fig. 5 in which 224 is a heat shield per instant application specification para. 0050) adjacent to the combustion chamber (60 is adjacent to combustion chamber 10 in Fig. 2), but is silent as discussed so far on at least a portion of the heat shield being coated with the catalytic metal layer.
As discussed above in claim 1, Dye teaches coating system 14 with layer 18 of platinum completely covers all of object wall surface 13 that would otherwise contact the hydrocarbon fuel per [0010], and that the object may be a fuel nozzle per [0008]. Heat shield 60 of Pieussergues is another wall of the mixer assembly in Fig. 2, i.e., a fuel nozzle assembly, and at least a portion of 60 may contact the mixture of fuel and air flowing from passage 74.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby to have at least a portion of the heat shield being coated with the catalytic metal layer as taught by Dye to facilitate protecting the heat shield, and facilitate reducing or preventing the formation and/or adhesion of carbonaceous deposits from the hydrocarbon fuel that may be caused by elevated temperatures of the heat shield and the hydrocarbon fuel (Dye [0009]).
Regarding claim 24, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far on the catalytic metal layer is disposed continuously from the converging section to the diverging section of the venturi.
Dye teaches coating system 14 may be a platinum layer 18 directly coated on wall surface 13, coating system 14 being continuous and completely covering all of wall surface 13 that would otherwise contact the hydrocarbon fuel [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the catalytic metal layer in the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby be disposed continuously from the converging section to the diverging section of the venturi as taught by Dye to completely cover all of the passage wall surface which would otherwise contact the hydrocarbon fuel.
Regarding claim 25, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above and Pieussergues further teaches an inner swirler (52 Fig. 2, as discussed above in claim 1 the air inlet is the inlet of 52) and an outer swirler (54 Fig. 4), and as modified in view of Sandelis and Dye, at least a portion of the coated passage wall (passage wall 72 of venturi 56 in Fig. 2 is coated in view of Dye as discussed in claim 1) is downstream of an outlet from the inner swirler (72 is downstream of outlet of 52 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above and Pieussergues further teaches the mixer assembly further comprises a fuel nozzle tip (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) including a heat shield (60 Fig. 2 in light of instant application Fig. 5 in which 224 is a heat shield per instant application specification para. 0050) at a downstream end of the passage (60 is at a downstream end of 74 in Fig. 2), but is silent as discussed so far on at least a portion of the heat shield includes the catalytic metal layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
383
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As discussed above in claim 1, Dye teaches coating system 14 with layer 18 of platinum completely covers all of object wall surface 13 that would otherwise contact the hydrocarbon fuel per [0010], and that the object may be a fuel nozzle per [0008]. Heat shield 60 of Pieussergues is another wall of the mixer assembly in Fig. 2, i.e., a fuel nozzle assembly, and at least a portion of 60 may contact the mixture of fuel and air flowing from passage 74.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby to have at least a portion of the heat shield being coated with the catalytic metal layer as taught by Dye to facilitate protecting the heat shield, and facilitate reducing or preventing the formation and/or adhesion of carbonaceous deposits from the hydrocarbon fuel that may be caused by elevated temperatures of the heat shield and the hydrocarbon fuel (Dye [0009]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pieussergues et al. 20090151357 in view of Sandelis et al. 20140090382, Dye et al. 20070160759, Chatterjee et al. 20220154335 and Rickerby et al. 20160083833 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Dudebout et al. 20200378305.
Regarding claim 19, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the combustor is configured to combust the mixture of air and the hydrocarbon fuel to generate combustion products (as discussed above in claim 18 burning fuel mixed with air in the combustor of Pieussergues generates combustion products and as modified in view of Sandelis and Dye, the fuel is hydrocarbon fuel), but is silent as discussed so far on the gas turbine engine further comprises at least one component coated with a thermal barrier coating downstream of the combustor and configured to receive the combustion products.
Dudebout teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) including a combustor (300 Fig. 1) generating combustion gases [0028] and turbines (152 Fig. 1). Dudebout teaches wherein the gas turbine engine further comprises at least one component (turbine blade 200 Figs. 2A-2B) coated with a thermal barrier coating (520 Fig. 5; [0015] and [0040]) downstream of the combustor (turbine blade 200 in turbines 152 are downstream of combustor 300 in Fig. 1) and configured to receive combustion products (combustion products flow from the combustor to the turbines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby wherein the gas turbine engine further comprises at least one component coated with a thermal barrier coating downstream of the combustor and configured to receive the combustion products as taught by Dudebout to improve the heat resistance of the component (Dudebout [0043]).
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pieussergues et al. 20090151357 in view of Sandelis et al. 20140090382, Dye et al. 20070160759, Rickerby et al. 20160083833 and Chatterjee et al. 20220154335 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMasters et al. 20170051675.
Regarding claim 21, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby teaches all that is claimed above but Pieussergues does not explicitly teach the passage wall is formed from a metal alloy.
McMasters teaches fuel nozzles of a gas turbine engine may typically be made of materials which include stainless steel, corrosion-resistant alloys of nickel and chromium, and high-strength nickel-base alloys which are suitable for a fuel nozzle and provide mechanical and chemical properties desired for the fuel nozzle and its passage relative to its exterior operating environment and the fuel that flows through its passage (para. 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee and Rickerby to have the passage wall formed from a metal alloy as taught by McMasters as metal alloys are corrosion-resistant and/or high strength and are suitable for a fuel nozzle operated in a gas turbine engine (para. 0018).
In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 22, Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee, Rickerby and further in view of McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the platinum is electroplated directly on the metal alloy (as discussed above in claim 1, Dye teaches coating system 14 may be a platinum layer 18 directly coated on wall surface 13 which in Pieussergues as modified in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee, Rickerby is the passage wall of the venturi of the fuel nozzle, in view of Chatterjee the platinum layer is electroplated directly on the passage wall, and the passage wall is formed from the metal alloy in view of McMasters such that the platinum layer is electroplated directly on the metal alloy).
Regarding claim 23 Pieussergues in view of Sandelis, Dye, Chatterjee, Rickerby and further in view of McMasters teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the metal alloy chosen from the group consisting of iron-based alloys, nickel-based alloys, and chromium-based alloys (as discussed above in claim 21, McMasters teaches the metal alloy may be any one of stainless steel, i.e., iron-based alloy, corrosion-resistant alloys of nickel and chromium, and high-strength nickel-base alloys which are each suitable for forming a fuel nozzle).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding prior art Pieussergues and Dye.
Applicant's arguments regarding prior art Dye in the Statement of Substance of Interview and under the 103 rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive. As cited in the Final Rejection, Dye specifically teaches a catalytic coating may be applied to fuel nozzles which are exposed to hydrocarbon fluids in [0008]. Applicant asserts that the claimed venturi passage wall is where a gaseous fuel-air mixture flows but none of the claims claim a gaseous fuel-air mixture and the specification does not disclose a gaseous fuel-air mixture. Claim 1 claims a hydrocarbon fuel and specification [0024] states "An aviation turbine fuel in the embodiments discussed herein is a combustible hydrocarbon liquid fuel, such as a kerosene-type fuel, having a desired carbon number." Pieussergues teaches a fuel nozzle with a venturi and that soot and coke deposits may form on the interior surface of the venturi as described in [0004] and in [0040] regarding the fuel nozzle shown in Fig. 2. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pieussergues with Dye to have the surface of the venturi coated with the platinum coating of Dye to reduce the formation of coke.
Regarding the new limitations added to claim 1, newly cited prior art has been used in the 103 rejections above, such that most of Applicant’s arguments regarding those limitations in light of Dye and Bagnall are moot but some regarding Dye are also not persuasive.
However, regarding Applicant’s argument that Dye’s CVD process produces a very smooth, very thin platinum layer, which is fundamentally different from the electroplated platinum layer recited in amended claim 1 and Applicant’s argument that the method of application affects the resulting microstructure and chemical properties, and there is no evidence in the cited art that a CVD platinum layer would exhibit the same filamentary coke-catalyzing behavior as the electroplated platinum layer with the claimed thickness and surface roughness both run counter to the instant specification.
Instant specification [0047] recites “For aerodynamic purposes related to the flow of the fuel-air mixture through the pilot mixing chamber 274, the catalytic metal layer 288 preferably has a very smooth surface finish. A smooth surface finish also helps to prevent coke from sticking to the second venturi 280. In some embodiments, the catalytic metal layer 288 may have a surface finish (a surface roughness, Ra) from twenty microinches to one hundred fifty microinches” and [0048] recites “The catalytic metal layer 288 may be applied using any suitable method that produces a continuous metal layer with the thicknesses and surface finishes discussed above.” Applicant’s disclosure does not teach how Applicant’s electroplated platinum with a range of rougher surface finish is any more effective than Dye's CVD coating with a surface finish of about forty microinches. Dye also teaches any suitable thickness of the platinum layer capable of facilitating reducing deposition of carbonaceous deposits on the coated surface may be used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, 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.
/A.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights