DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
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 following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
In claim 3 & 14, “substantially uniformly distributing the plurality of combustion positions between the leading edge and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage” is not shown in any of the drawings. Fig. 2 & 3, which show the distributions of the combustion positions between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades, only depicts the combustion positions at axially different positions between the leading and trailing edges, and does not appear to depict or suggest a “uniform distribution” (i.e. the positions being uniform/the same).
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 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.
Claim 3, 13-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “injecting the fluid comprises substantially uniformly distributing the plurality of combustion positions between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades”. This renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1 requires that the “plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades”. It is unclear how the combustion positions can be simultaneously varying in axial positions between the leading and trailing edges of the turbine blades as required by claim 1, while also being “uniformly distributed” between the leading and trailing edges as required by claim 3. The instant disclosure does not appear to discuss what is meant by “substantially uniformly distributing the plurality of combustion positions between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades”, and the Drawings appear to depict the axial positions of the combustion positions 320 varying axially along the plurality of turbine blades (Fig. 2 & 3). The specification discusses “uniformly distribute or average the combustion temperatures across the turbine blade sets” in Paragraph 0102, but does not discuss uniform distribution of the combustion positions on the turbine blade sets. The Specification also discusses uniformly distributing the fluid injection positions on the plurality of turbine vanes (as shown in Fig. 3, discussed in Para. 0099, “constant injection positions 350”). Consequently, it is unclear what the claim is attempting to mean or encompass, since claim 3 appears to contradict claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of fluid injectors configured to inject a fluid comprising a fuel into the combustion gas path to a plurality of combustion positions around the plurality of turbine blades, the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades, and the plurality of combustion positions provide a substantially isothermal combustion in the combustion gas path between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the recitation “the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades, and the plurality of combustion positions provide a substantially isothermal combustion in the combustion gas path” is meant to be a result of a physical/structural configuration of the plurality of fuel injectors, or if the recitation is describing a result of how the plurality of fuel injectors are meant to be operated (i.e. a functional recitation). The “combustion positions” would only be present when the system is operating (as the claim does not suggest otherwise), hence it is unclear if the axial position variation and isothermal combustion is meant to occur naturally from any operation of the plurality of fuel injectors (i.e. resulting from the physical structure of the injectors), or only results from a specific control of the fuel injectors (i.e. such as varying a flow rate of fuel). If the axial position variation and isothermal combustion are tied to how the injectors are controlled, it is recommended that a “controller” be recited that is “configured to” operate the plurality of fuel injectors to achieve the recited combustion axial position variation and isothermal combustion (see for example, claim 19 of parent patent US 11,971,170; or US 12,037,951, claim 21). By describing the plurality of fuel injectors in terms of the result it is meant to achieve during operation, it is unclear whether infringement of the claim occurs when one creates the system as structurally described, or when the steps are actually performed (in this case, steps of achieving different axial positions of the combustion positions at the turbine blades and isothermal combustion). In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also see MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the plurality of combustion positions are substantially uniformly distributed between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage”. This renders the claim indefinite, as claim 13 requires that the “the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades”. It is unclear how the combustion positions can be simultaneously varying in axial positions between the leading and trailing edges of the turbine blades as required by claim 13, while also being “uniformly distributed” between the leading and trailing edges as required by claim 3. The instant disclosure does not appear to discuss what is meant by “substantially uniformly distributing the plurality of combustion positions between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades”, and the Drawings appear to depict the axial positions of the combustion positions 320 varying axially along the plurality of turbine blades (Fig. 2 & 3). The specification discusses “uniformly distribute or average the combustion temperatures across the turbine blade sets” in Paragraph 0102, but does not discuss uniform distribution of the combustion positions on the turbine blade sets. The Specification also discusses uniformly distributing the fluid injection positions on the plurality of turbine vanes (as shown in Fig. 3, discussed in Para. 0099, “constant injection positions 350”). Consequently, it is unclear what the claim is attempting to mean or encompass, since claim 14 appears to contradict claim 13.
Claim 18 recites “a plurality of fluid injectors configured to inject a fluid comprising a fuel into a combustion gas path to a plurality of combustion positions around the plurality of turbine blades, the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades, and the plurality of combustion positions provide a substantially isothermal combustion in the combustion gas path between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the recitation “the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades, and the plurality of combustion positions provide a substantially isothermal combustion…” is meant to be a result of a physical/structural configuration of the plurality of fuel injectors, or if the recitation is describing a result of how the plurality of fuel injectors are meant to be operated (i.e. a functional recitation). The “combustion positions” would only be present when the system is operating (the claim does not suggest otherwise), hence it is unclear if the axial position variation and isothermal combustion is meant to occur naturally from any operation of the plurality of fuel injectors (i.e. resulting from the physical structure of the injectors), or only results from a specific control of the fuel injectors (i.e. such as varying a flow rate of fuel). If the axial position variation and isothermal combustion are tied to how the injectors are controlled, it is recommended that a “controller” be recited that is “configured to” operate the plurality of fuel injectors to achieve the recited combustion axial position variation and isothermal combustion (see for example, claim 19 of parent patent US 11,971,170; or US 12,037,951, claim 21). By describing the plurality of fuel injectors in terms of the result it is meant to achieve during operation, it is unclear whether infringement of the claim occurs when one creates the system as structurally described, or when the steps are actually performed (in this case, steps of achieving different axial positions of the combustion positions at the turbine blades and isothermal combustion). In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also see MPEP § 2173.05.
Claims 15-17, 19-20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claims 13 & 18 respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,037,951 (henceforth “the patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding independent claim 1, the patent claims a method (claim 1, col. 46, ln. 20-44), comprising:
supplying a fluid to a plurality of fluid injectors coupled to a plurality of turbine vanes of a turbine stage of a gas turbine (claim 1, col. 46, ln. 36-46, “via varying fluid flows to a plurality of fluid injectors of an isothermal expansion system coupled to the turbine stage… the plurality of fluid injectors vary in an axial position relative to a leading edge of the plurality of turbine vanes…”, claim 15, “wherein the plurality of fluid injectors is disposed at a plurality of different axial positions between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine vanes”), wherein the fluid comprises a fuel (claim 14, col. 47, ln. 42-45, “the fluid flows comprise fuel flows”);
injecting the fluid from the plurality of fluid injectors into a combustion gas path to a plurality of combustion positions around a plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (claim 1, 9, 12), wherein the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades (claim 1, col. 46, ln. 32-36 “controlling and varying an axial range of different axial positions of combustion between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades”); and
combusting the fuel at the plurality of combustion positions to obtain substantially isothermal combustion in the combustion gas path between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (claim 1, col. 46, ln. 32-36, “controlling and varying an axial range of different axial positions of combustion between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage to reduce temperature variations over the plurality of turbine blades”).
Regarding claim 3, the patent claims the method of claim 1, wherein injecting the fluid comprises substantially uniformly distributing the plurality of combustion positions between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (see 112(b) rejection above, for sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as uniformly distributing a combustion temperature between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades, across the turbine stage, as to not contradict the recitation in claim 1 requiring varying axial positions of the combustion positions; the patent claims in their claim 1, “reduce temperature variations over the plurality of turbine blades”, which could be interpreted as promoting “uniform distribution” of combustion temperature over the turbine section at the plurality of turbine blades).
Regarding claim 4, the patent claims the method of claim 1, wherein injecting the fluid comprises varying injection of the fluid at least via different axial positions of the plurality of fluid injectors coupled to the plurality of turbine vanes, and the different axial positions vary between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine vanes (claim 1, col. 46, ln. 39-41, “wherein the plurality of fluid injectors vary in an axial position relative to a leading edge of the plurality of turbine vanes”, claim 15, col. 47, ln 46-49, “wherein the plurality of fluid injectors is disposed at a plurality of different axial positions between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine vanes”).
Regarding claims 5-7, the patent claims the method of claim 4, but does not explicitly claim wherein the different axial positions comprise at least 3 different axial positions, at least 4 different axial positions, or at least 10 different axial positions.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention was made to discover the optimum value of the axial positions, such as at least 3, 4 or 10 different axial positions, since 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. In this case, the patent already claims the general conditions of the claim, in that the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions throughout the plurality of turbine blades (claim 1, “varying an axial range of different axial positions of combustion between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known to optimize the number of different axial positions across the plurality of turbine blades to achieve a desired level of performance, in this case, “to reduce temperature variations over the plurality of turbine blades” as claimed in the patent (claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, the patent claims the method of claim 1, comprising controlling a flow rate of the fluid to the plurality of fluid injectors to position the plurality of combustion positions between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (claim 9, col. 47, ln. 14-19, “wherein varying the axial range of the different axial positions of combustion comprises varying a range of the fluid flow rates among the plurality of fluid injectors.”).
Regarding claim 12, the patent claims the method of claim 11, wherein controlling the flow rate of the fluid comprises varying the flow rate between the plurality of fluid injectors (claim 9, col. 47, ln. 14-19, “wherein varying the axial range of the different axial positions of combustion comprises varying a range of the fluid flow rates among the plurality of fluid injectors”).
Regarding independent claim 13, the patent claims a system (claim 21, col. 48, ln. 61-col. 49, ln. 29), comprising:
a gas turbine (claim 21), comprising:
a turbine shaft disposed along a rotational axis (claim 21, col. 28, ln. 63);
a turbine casing disposed circumferentially about the turbine shaft (claim 21, col. 48, ln. 64-65);
a combustion gas path disposed between the turbine shaft and the turbine casing (claim 21, col. 48, ln. 66-67);
a turbine stage disposed in the combustion gas path (claim 21, col. 49, ln. 1), wherein the turbine stage comprises:
a plurality of turbine blades (claim 21, col. 49, ln. 4-5); and
a plurality of turbine vanes disposed upstream from the plurality of turbine blades (claim 21, col. 49, ln. 2-3), wherein the plurality of turbine vanes comprises a plurality of fluid injectors (claim 21, col. 49, ln. 10-12) configured to inject a fluid comprising a fuel into the combustion gas path to a plurality of combustion positions around the plurality of turbine blades, the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades (claim 21, col. 49, ln. 23-26, “control and vary fluid flows to the plurality of fluid injectors to vary an axial range of different axial positions of combustion between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades…”), and the plurality of combustion positions provide a substantially isothermal combustion in the combustion gas path between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (claim 21, col. 49, ln. 23-29, “…to reduce temperature variations over the plurality of turbine blades in response to a change in a load on the gas turbine”). Claim 18 of the patent also claims essentially the same subject matter as claim 13 and “anticipates” the claim (col. 48, ln. 1-30) .
Regarding claim 14, the patent claims the system of claim 13, wherein injecting the fluid the plurality of combustion positions are substantially uniformly distributed between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (see 112(b) rejection above, for sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as uniformly distributing a combustion temperature between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades, across the turbine stage, as to not contradict the recitation in claim 13 requiring varying axial positions of the combustion positions; the patent claims in their claim 21, “to reduce temperature variations over the plurality of turbine blades”, which could be interpreted as promoting “uniform distribution” of combustion temperature over the turbine section at the plurality of turbine blades).
Regarding claim 15, the patent claims the system of claim 13, wherein the plurality of fluid injectors are disposed at different axial positions that vary between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine vanes (claim 21, Col. 49, ln. 15-17, “wherein at least one fluid injector of the plurality of fluid injectors is coupled to each of the plurality of turbine vanes, wherein the plurality of fluid injectors vary in an axial position relative to the leading edge of the plurality of turbine vanes”; claim 20, col. 48, ln. 40-47).
Regarding claim 16, the patent claims the system of claim 15, but does not explicitly claim wherein the different axial positions comprise at least 4 different axial positions.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention was made to discover the optimum value of the axial positions, such as at least 4 different axial positions, since 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. In this case, the patent already claims the general conditions of the claim, in that the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions throughout the plurality of turbine blades (claim 21, “ to vary an axial range of different axial positions of combustion between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known to optimize the number of different axial positions across the plurality of turbine blades to achieve a desired level of performance, in this case, “to reduce temperature variations over the plurality of turbine blades” as claimed in the patent (claim 21).
Regarding claim 17, the patent claims the system of claim 15, wherein the different axial positions of the plurality of fluid injectors vary from one vane to another vane of the plurality of turbine vanes (claim 20, col. 48, ln. 40-47, “wherein the plurality of fluid injectors is disposed at a plurality of different axial positions between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine vanes, wherein the plurality of fluid injectors vary in the axial position relative to the leading edge of the plurality of turbine vanes, the fluid flow rate, or the combination thereof, from one turbine vane to another in the plurality of turbine vanes”).
Regarding independent claim 18, the patent claims a system, comprising:
a plurality of turbine vanes configured to mount in a turbine stage of a gas turbine upstream from a plurality of turbine blades (claim 18, col. 48, ln. 11-13, “wherein the turbine stage comprises a plurality of turbine vanes disposed upstream from a plurality of turbine blades”), wherein the plurality of turbine vanes comprises a plurality of fluid injectors configured to inject a fluid comprising a fuel into a combustion gas path to a plurality of combustion positions around the plurality of turbine blades (claim 18, 20, Col. 48, ln. 47-56, “wherein the plurality of fluid injectors is disposed at a plurality of different axial positions between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine vanes… configured to vary the fluid flows to the plurality of fluid injectors at least by reducing or stopping a fuel flow to one or more downstream fluid injectors …[and] is configured to vary the fluid flows to the plurality of fluid injectors at least by increasing or starting the fuel flow to the one or more downstream fluid injectors”), the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades, and the plurality of combustion positions provide a substantially isothermal combustion in the combustion gas path between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (claim 18, Col. 48, ln. 18-28, “control and vary an axial range of different axial positions of combustion between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage to reduce temperature variations over the plurality of turbine blades via varying fluid flows to a plurality of fluid injectors of an isothermal expansion system coupled to the turbine stage in response to a change in a load on the gas turbine, wherein the plurality of fluid injectors vary in an axial position relative to a leading edge of the plurality of turbine vanes”).
Regarding claim 19, the patent claims the system of claim 18, wherein the plurality of fluid injectors are disposed at different axial positions that vary between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine vanes (claim 18, col. 48, ln. 25-28; claim 20, col. 48, ln. 40-42).
Regarding claim 20, the patent claims the system of claim 19, wherein the different axial positions of the plurality of fluid injectors vary from one vane to another vane of the plurality of turbine vanes (claim 20, col. 48, ln. 40-47, “wherein the plurality of fluid injectors is disposed at a plurality of different axial positions between leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine vanes, wherein the plurality of fluid injectors vary in the axial position relative to the leading edge of the plurality of turbine vanes, the fluid flow rate, or the combination thereof, from one turbine vane to another in the plurality of turbine vanes”).
Claims 1, 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,739 (henceforth “the patent ‘739”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding independent claim 1, the patent ‘739 claims a method, comprising:
supplying a fluid to a plurality of fluid injectors coupled to a plurality of turbine vanes of a turbine stage of a gas turbine, wherein the fluid comprises a fuel (claim 22, col. 48, ln. 20-22, “injecting a fluid comprising fuel from a plurality of fluid injectors of a plurality of turbine vanes of a turbine stage of a gas turbine”);
injecting the fluid from the plurality of fluid injectors into a combustion gas path to a plurality of combustion positions around a plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage, wherein the plurality of combustion positions vary in axial positions between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the plurality of turbine blades (claim 22, col. 48, ln. 25-29, “wherein the injecting and the stabilizing comprises distributing a heat release from the flames via different axial positioning of the flames over an axial length of the plurality of turbine blades”; “over the axial length of the plurality of turbine blades” implies the positioning being between the leading and trailing edges of the blades); and
combusting the fuel at the plurality of combustion positions to obtain substantially isothermal combustion in the combustion gas path between the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage (Id. “…distributing a heat release from the flames via different axial positioning of the flames over an axial length of the plurality of turbine blades”).
Regarding claim 2, the patent ‘739 claims the method of claim 1, comprising stabilizing combustion via a plurality of flame stabilizers at the plurality of combustion positions (claim 22, col. 48, ln. 23-29, “stabilizing flames from combustion of the fuel via a plurality of flame stabilizers of a plurality of turbine blades of the turbine stage… stabilizing comprises distributing a heat release from the flames via different axial positioning of the flames over an axial length of the plurality of turbine blades”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-12 would be allowable if a timely Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome the rejections under Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection presented above.
Claims 3, 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and a timely Terminal Disclaimer filed to overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection presented above.
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poyyapakkam (US 20120297777 A1, US 8713943 B2) teaches a reheat burner arrangement in a gas turbine with vanes having fuel injectors therein.
Martin (US 20130323080 A1) teaches a turbine blade having vortex generators integrated therein.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights