DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on June 05, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on October 23, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant elected:
Group 1: 18 fuel spray nozzles;
Group 2: 3.5 fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size;
Group 3: 12 duplex nozzles;
Group 4: 6 single flow fuel spray nozzles;
Group 5: 6 duplex fuel spray nozzles per group of duplex fuel spray nozzles;
Group 6: first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of 0.0875; and
Group 7: second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of 0.149.
The traversal is on the grounds that “the subject matter of all species is sufficiently related that… search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden”. This is not found persuasive because the inventions as claimed have been shown to be distinct based on their mutually exclusive configurations pursuant to MPEP § 806.04 and because search and examination burden has been established pursuant to MPEP § 808.02 (see pp. 2-4 of prior Office Action). Each patentably distinct species requires a different field of search (employing different search strategies and search queries). Applicant has not specifically pointed out any supposed errors in the established burden. Moreover, Applicant has not stated on the record or submitted evidence that the species are not patentably distinct.
Pursuant to MPEP § 904.02, the search covers the claimed subject matter AND the disclosed features which might reasonably be expected to be claimed. In the instant case, if the application were not restricted to one patentably distinct species, the search would be required to cover unique features reasonably expected to be claimed for the numerous mutually exclusive configurations. It is additionally pointed out that the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. In the instant case, it would be necessary to search for each patentably distinct species in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the others. The claims encompass such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/892,707, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, in Claims 1-20 it fails to provide support for each nvPM emissions index being “system loss corrected”, and by extension the claimed index ratios also being “system loss corrected”.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because using phrases which can be implied (e.g., “is also disclosed”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. See SPEC pages 82-93 (Durand 2023, Harper 2022 and Saffaripour 2019) have included.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
As to Claim 1, “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
As to Claim 1, “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
As to Claims 2-6, 8-14 and 17-18 each recitation that begins with “preferably” renders the respective claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to Claim 7, “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, and if a fuel provided to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
Further, the recitation of “a fuel” at line 7 raises question as to whether it refers to the aforementioned fuel set forth in claim 1 at line 13; or another fuel.
Further, the recitation of “a sustainable aviation fuel” at line 7 raises question as to whether it refers to the aforementioned sustainable aviation fuel set forth in claim 1 at line 13; or another sustainable aviation fuel.
For the above reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
As to Claim 7, “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
Further, the recitation of “a fuel” at line 10 raises question as to whether it refers to: (i) the aforementioned fuel set forth in claim 1 at line 13, (ii) that set forth in claim 7 at line 7; or (iii) another fuel.
Further, the recitation of “a sustainable aviation fuel” at line 10 raises question as to whether it refers to: (i) the aforementioned fuel set forth in claim 1 at line 13, (ii) that set forth in claim 7 at line 7; or (iii) another fuel.
For the above reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
As to Claim 7, “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
Further, the recitation of “a fuel” at line 13 raises question as to whether it refers to: (i) the aforementioned fuel set forth in claim 1 at line 13, (ii) that set forth in claim 7 at line 7; or (iii) another fuel.
For the above reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
As to Claim 7, “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
Further, the recitation of “a fuel” at line 16 raises question as to whether it refers to: (i) the aforementioned fuel set forth in claim 1 at line 13, (ii) that of claim 7, line 13; or (iii) another fuel.
Further, the recitation of “a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel” at line 16 raises question as to whether it refers to: (i) the aforementioned fuel set forth in claim 1 at line 13, (ii) that set forth in claim 7 at line 13; or (iii) another fuel.
For the above reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claims 15-16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, a rejected indefinite claim.
As to Claim 18, “a %SAF” and “the fuel provided to the combustor” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation refers a percentage of the aforementioned “sustainable aviation fuel” configured to be provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles or another percentage.
As to Claim 19, it is not clear if the step of “providing fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel” recites an additional sustainable aviation fuel or refers to one of the aforementioned sustainable aviation fuels already set forth in claim 1.
As to Claim 20, “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
As to Claim 20 “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Numerous manners exist in which an emissions index ratio may be system loss corrected and as such the language of the claim “the system loss” raises question as to whether “the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index” refers to a particular type of system loss corrected nvPM emission index or encompasses all types of system loss corrected nvPM emission indexes.
As to Claim 20, it is not clear if “providing fuel comprising sustainable aviation fuel” at line 15 refers to the aforementioned “fuel” (line 13) and “sustainable aviation fuel” (line 13); or another fuel and/or sustainable aviation fuel. As such, it is not clear if the claim is requiring an additional fuel for the method step or simply referencing the already set forth fuel.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20070125093-A1
“BURD”
US-11643979-B1
“BEMMENT”
US-20130125556-A1
“HOKE”
US-20200141330-A1
“LLANO”
US-12018841-B1
“MADDEN”
This action references the following non-patent documents:
AUTHOR OR EDITOR
TITLE (DATE),
PUBLISHER,
EDITION
CHAPTERS / PAGES
COPY
HEREINAFTER
Durdina et al.
Reduction of Nonvolatile Particulate Matter Emissions of a Commercial Turbofan Engine at the Ground Level from the Use of a Sustainable Aviation Fuel Blend [2021],
American Chemical Society
ALL
PROVIDED
“DURDINA”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-8, 10-11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DURDINA in view of BURD and DURDINA.
Re Claims 1, 19 and 20, BURD teaches a gas turbine engine 2 for an aircraft [para 0003] and a method for operating the gas turbine engine, the gas turbine engine, comprising:
a rich burn, quick quench, lean burn (RQL) combustor 26 having a number of fuel spray nozzles 40 in the range of 14-22 (paras 0029-0031) or a number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size in the range 2 to 6.
BURD, though not explicitly mentioned, necessarily includes in its gas turbine engine a first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio that is defined as:
E
I
i
d
l
e
E
I
m
a
x
T
O
where:
EIidle is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for given operating conditions; and
EImaxTO is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions.
However, BURD fails to teach wherein the gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to the fuel spray nozzles, the method comprises provide fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel to the fuel spray nozzles and the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8.
BEMMENT teaches wherein a gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to fuel spray nozzles (11:1-38, 28:56 to 30:16). BEMMENT further teaches the method comprising providing fuel comprising the sustainable aviation fuel to the fuel spray nozzles (BEMMENT claim 19; 29:21-38, 62:50-55). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine so that it is configured to provide fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to fuel spray nozzles and to provide the method such that it compresses providing fuel comprising sustainable aviation fuel to the fuel spray nozzles, in order to provide one or more of higher specific energy, higher specific heat capacity, higher thermal stability, higher lubricity, lower viscosity, lower surface tension, lower freeze point, lower soot emission, lower CO2 emissions, decreased specific fuel consumption and/or decreased maintenance costs (BEMMENT 30:4-16). However, BURD in view of BEMMENT as discussed so far fails to teach the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8.
DURDINA teaches a gas turbine engine (pages 14576-14582) having a first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio that is defined as:
E
I
i
d
l
e
E
I
m
a
x
T
O
where:
EIidle is the system loss corrected (page 14580) nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for given operating conditions (Fig. 2; page 14580); and
EImaxTO is the system loss corrected (page 14580) nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (Fig. 2; page 14580), the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 (see annotated Image and further discussion below). For example, referring to Figure 2A, first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio using sustainable aviation fuel HEFA-SPK blend corresponds to about (2.5 / 187) at point “A” and point “C” below, i.e., a value of ~ 0.013369, well below 0.8. NOTE either of these data points at “B” or “A” (annotated “AROUND 7% AVAILABLE THRUST) qualify as around 7%. Notably, even without extrapolating specific values for the emission indexes, done above for Applicant’s convenience, one of ordinary skill would have appreciated from Figure 2A DURDINA teaches first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio less than 0.8 in Figure 2A for both sustainable aviation fuel and hydrocarbon fuel.
.
PNG
media_image1.png
1133
1077
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine and method of BURD in view of BEMMENT such that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 as taught by DURDINA in order to reduce particulate emissions at desired conditions (DURDINA pages 14576-14577).
Re Claims 2-6, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is 0.013369 as discussed above. As such, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA renders obvious the values for the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio claimed in Claims 2-6 (wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than 0.708; wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than or equal to 0.5; wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than or equal to 0.105; wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is greater than or equal to 0.0103; wherein the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is in the range of 0.0103 to 0.105), which would have been obvious to provide for the reasons discussed in Claim 1 above.
Re Claim 7 , BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein a second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is defined as:
E
I
i
d
l
e
,
S
A
F
E
I
m
a
x
T
O
,
S
A
F
E
I
i
d
l
e
,
F
F
E
I
m
a
x
T
O
,
F
F
where:
EIidle,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, and if a fuel provided to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel;
EImaxTO,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor comprises a sustainable aviation fuel;
EIidle,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel;
EImaxTO,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the same given operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated, and if a fuel provided to the combustor is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
The above second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio (though indefinite as claimed), is deemed necessarily present in BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA. However, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 1.
DURDINA further teaches for sustainable aviation fuel [HEFA-SPK blend] in Figure 2A that EI--idle,SAF / EImaxTO,SAF is about 0.013 [2.5 / 187] (at points “A” and “C” as labeled in the Image above).
DURDINA further teaches for fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel [JET A-1] in Figure 2A that EI--idle,FF / EImaxTO,FF is about 0.022 [5 / 230] (at points “A” and “C” as labeled in the Image above).
As such, in Figure 2A DURDINA teaches a second idle-MTO nvPM emissions of 0.59, which is less than one.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 1 for the reasons discussed above with respect to DURDINA in Claim 1. Relied upon values are also shown in the annotated Image below.
PNG
media_image2.png
1014
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claims 8 and 10-11, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is 0.059 as discussed above. As such, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA renders obvious the values for the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio claimed in Claims 8, 10-11 (second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than or equal to 0.8; second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is greater than or equal to 0.03; second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is greater than or equal to 0.118), which would have been obvious to provide for the reasons discussed in Claim 1 above.
Re Claim 18, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the fuel provided to the combustor comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel.
BEMMENT further teaches wherein the fuel provided to the combustor comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel (claim 19; 29:48-56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the fuel provided to the combustor further comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel, in order to control a control parameter based on fuel characteristics (66:26 to 67:9).
Additionally, referring to Figure 2A of DURDINA, while one of ordinary skill would appreciate that increasing a blended amount of HEFA-SPK would be likely to decrease EImass at 7%, 100% available thrust a certain amount, they would also appreciate that given 50% hydrocarbon Jet A-1 EI mg/kg at 100 percent thrust would certainly not fall below 75 mg/kg in view of Figure 2A (which shows 230 mg/kg for 100% Jet A-1 and 186 mg/kg for 68% Jet A-1 at 100% available thrust) and as such would have appreciated that the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine would remain substantially less than 0.8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fuel provided to the combustor comprises a 50% to 100% of the sustainable aviation fuel and the first idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.8 to meet desired emissions levels (BEMMENT 31:5-13 and 66:46 to 67:33).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA as applied above, further in view of MADDEN.
Re Claims 9 and 12 BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is less than or equal to 0.178 / wherein the second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is in the range 0.118 to 0.178.
As discussed above, second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio is governed by EIidle (at around 7% available thrust) and EImaxTO (at around 100 % available thrust) for sustainable and hydrocarbon fuel (as best understood). MADDEN further teaches emissions index EIidle (at around 7% available thrust) and emissions index EImaxTO (at around 100 % available thrust) are result effective variables routinely optimized by a controller of a gas turbine engine (9:43 to 15:11) to achieve the recognized result of accounting for fuel properties of different fuels such as hydrocarbon and sustainable aviation fuels and to adjust methods of operating a gas turbine accordingly (1:21-28) accounting for emissions output (9:43 to 15:11) in compliance with regulations. Notably, the number of particles per kg dictate the mg per kilogram for each emissions index. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gas turbine engine such that the controller controls the engine to achieve a second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratio that is less than or equal to 0.178 and in the range 0.118 to 0.178, in order to account for fuel properties of different fuels such as hydrocarbon and sustainable aviation fuels and to adjust methods of operating a gas turbine accordingly, since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA as applied above, further in view of HOKE.
Re Claims 13-15, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the fuel spray nozzles comprises one or more duplex nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles, wherein the duplex fuel spray nozzles are arranged in groups about the circumference of the combustor, wherein each group of duplex fuel spray nozzles comprises 2-8 nozzles.
HOKE teaches fuel spray nozzles comprising one or more duplex nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles (Fig. 3; ¶¶0020-0023, 0027-0028) wherein the duplex fuel spray nozzles are arranged in groups about the circumference of the combustor (Fig. 3, ¶¶0027-0028) wherein each group of duplex fuel spray nozzles comprises 2-8 nozzles (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine such that the fuel spray nozzles comprises one or more duplex nozzles and one or more single flow nozzles, wherein the duplex fuel spray nozzles are arranged in groups about the circumference of the combustor, and wherein each group of duplex fuel spray nozzles comprises 2-8 nozzles (Fig. 3), in order to provide differential coupling to the associated occurring acoustic frequencies (HOKE ¶¶0027-0028).
Re Claim 16, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 13 as discussed above, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the combustor comprises one or more ignitors and the one or more ignitors are arranged adjacent to one or more of the duplex fuel spray nozzles.
HOKE further teaches the combustor comprises one or more ignitors 124 and the one or more ignitors are arranged adjacent to one or more of the duplex fuel spray nozzles (¶0028). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine wherein the combustor comprises one or more ignitors arranged adjacent to one or more of the duplex fuel spray nozzles, in order to provide differential coupling to the associated occurring acoustic frequencies (HOKE ¶¶0027-0028).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA as applied above, further in view of LLANO.
Re Claim 17, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, the engine necessarily including number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size. However, BURD in view of BEMMENT and DURDINA as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size is in the range of 2.5 to 4.5.
BURD teaches number of fuel nozzles is result effective routinely optimized for desired engine size (BURD ¶0031). LLANO teaches a high pressure compressor with a core size defined as mass flow * T0.5 / P (LLANO ¶¶0084, 0089) and teaches that the core size is a result effective variable routinely optimized and modulated for a given number of fuel nozzles for achieving engine temperatures and powers for given power conditions (¶¶0089-0097; Figs. 5-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas turbine engine so the number of fuel spray nozzles per unit engine core size is in the range 2.5 to 4.5, in order to achieve desired engine power and temperatures and/or improved compressor operability and/or reduced ground idle thrust and/or cooling modulation and/or reduced cooling flow and/or improved fuel consumption (LLANO ¶¶0091, 0096, 0118-0125) and since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Conclusion
The following non-patent literature prior art, made of record but not relied upon above, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AUTHOR OR EDITOR
TITLE (DATE),
PUBLISHER,
EDITION
CHAPTERS / PAGES
COPY
HEREINAFTER
Durdina et al.
Gaseous and Particulate Emissions from a Small Business Jet Using Conventional Jet A-1 and a 30% SAF Blend [2025], American Chemical Society,
ES & T AIR,
967-978
PROVIDED
“DURDINA-2025”
Ge et al.
Predicting aviation non-volatile particulate matter emissions at cruise via convolutional neural network [2022], Science of the Total Environment,
ALL
PROVIDED
“GE”
Anderson et al.,
Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX) [2011],
NASA,
NASA/TM-2011-217059, ALL
ALL
PROVIDED
“ANDERSON”
DURDINA-2025 is pertinent to sustainable aviation fuel (pages 968-969) and the claimed first and second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratios (Figures 4-6, page 973-976). It is noted that DURDINA qualifies as prior art because Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120.
GE is pertinent to sustainable aviation fuels and the claimed first and second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratios. See Figure 6 and Table 2.
ANDERSON is pertinent to sustainable aviation fuels and the claimed first and second idle-MTO nvPM emissions index ratios. See pages 50-56 and Appendices G, H and I.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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 on (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 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.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
January 31, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741