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 .
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. 18/892,710, 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 claimed nvPM emissions index being “system loss corrected”.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, it is noted that the foreign priority document fails to provide support for each claimed nvPM emissions index being system loss corrected, and thus, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application filing date.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numerals 10, 50a, 50b, and 62 in Fig. 5, 128 in Fig. 8, and 1002 in Fig. 9, associated with the unlabeled boxes, circles or the like representations shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels, MPEP 608.02(b) II. Applicant is required to label in words the function of said boxes, circles or the like representations, such that a reader would be appraised of their function without having to read the entire specification in order to figure it out. For example, if according to the specification, element 50a is a fuselage fuel tank, the box should be labeled - - fuselage fuel tank - -. The same applies to all the other boxes/circles with reference numerals mentioned above.
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.
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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: AIRCRAFT ENGINE AND METHOD THEREOF FOR REDUCING NONVOLATILE PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13-14, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, i) recitation “wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:2 to 1:5” is believed to be in error for - - wherein a ratio of [[the]]a number of the fuel spray nozzles [[in]]of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to [[the]]a number of the fuel spray nozzles [[in]]of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in [[the]]a range of 1:2 to 1:5 - -; ii) the first recitation of the term “MTO” is believed to be in error for - - maximum take-off condition (MTO) - -; and iii) the first recitation of the term “nvPM” is believed to be in error for - - non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM)- -
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 17-20, term “the system loss corrected nvPM emission index” is believed to be in error for - - [[the]]a system loss corrected nvPM emission index - - because each claimed system loss corrected nvPM emission index is related to a different parameter.
Regarding claim 13, recitation “wherein the ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:4” is believed to be in error for - - wherein [[the]]a ratio of the number of the fuel spray nozzles [[in]]of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of the fuel spray nozzles [[in]]of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in [[the]]a range of 1:3 to 1:4 - -
Regarding claim 14, term “each of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles” is believed to be in error for - - each fuel spray nozzle of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Application No. 18/892,710. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/892,710 in view of NPL - Durdina - Reduction of Nonvolatile Particulate Matter Emissions of a Commercial Turbofan Engine at the Ground Level from the Use of a Sustainable Aviation Fuel Blend (provided by IDS), refers as Durdina thereafter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Application No. 18/892,710 teaches A gas turbine engine for an aircraft (claim 1, p. 2, l. 1), comprising:
a combustor, comprising a combustion chamber and a plurality of fuel spray nozzles configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber, wherein the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:2 to 1:5 (claim 1, p. 2, ll. 4-17); and
wherein:
an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
79
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(claim 1, p. 2, ll. 18-20)
wherein:
EImaxTO,SAF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) (claim 1, p. 3, ll. 1-3);
EImaxTO,FF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (claim 1, p. 3, ll. 4-6); and
Wf,maxTO is the mass flow rate of fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (claim 1, p. 3, ll. 7-9);
the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 2 (claim 1, p. 3, l. 13); and
the gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising a SAF to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (claim 1, p. 3, ll. 15-16).
Application No. 18/892,710 does not teach EImaxTO,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and EImaxTO,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
However, Durdina teaches emissions testing of a gas turbine engine using a sustainable aviation fuel blend (p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8), wherein "All results are reported at the engine exit plane, corrected for thermophoretic loss independent of the particle size and size-dependent particle loss in the sampling and measurement system" (p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution"). Furthermore, Durdina teaches loss-corrected nvPM mass emission indices (p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/892,710 by correcting the parameters EImaxTO, and EImaxTO,FF for system losses in order to obtain more accurate measurements by accounting for thermophoretic loss and size-dependent particle loss (Durdina, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", II. 1-12).
Regarding claims 2-3, Appl. No. 18/892,710 further teaches the recited limitations of claims 2-3, see claims 2-3 of Appl. No. 18/892,710.
Regarding claim 4, Application No. 18/892,710 in view of Durdina further teaches wherein:
a climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as:
PNG
media_image2.png
74
214
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 4, p. 3, ll. 1-3)
wherein:
EIclimb,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 85% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (Application No. 18/892,710’s EIclimb,SAF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 85% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel as taught by Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 4, p. 3, l. 4 to p. 4, l. 2 that is corrected for system loss as taught by Durdina, see Durdina’s p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", and p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2);
EIclimb,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 85% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIclimb,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (Application No. 18/892,710’s EIclimb,FF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 85% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIclimb,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel as taught by Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 4, p. 4, ll. 3-6 that is corrected for system loss as taught by Durdina, see Durdina’s p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", and p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2); and
Wf,climb is the mass flow rate of fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 85% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIclimb,SAF and EIclimb,FF are calculated; and (Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 4, p. 4, ll. 7-9);
the climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 2 (Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 4, p. 4, ll. 10-11).
The motivation of the combination of Application No. 18/892,710 in view of Durdina is the same with the reason for applying Durdina for the rejection of claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claims 5-6, Appl. No. 18/892,710 further teaches the recited limitations of claims 5-6, see claims 5-6 of Appl. No. 18/892,710.
Regarding claim 7, Application No. 18/892,710 in view of Durdina further teaches wherein:
an approach nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as:
PNG
media_image3.png
72
263
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 7, p. 4, ll. 1-3)
wherein:
EIapproach,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 30% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (Application No. 18/892,710’s Elapproach,SAF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 30% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel as taught by Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 7, p. 4, ll. 4-7 that is corrected for system loss as taught by Durdina, see Durdina’s p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", and p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2);
EIapproach,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 30% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIapproach,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (Application No. 18/892,710’s EIapproach,FF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 30% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIapproach,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel as taught by Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 7, p. 4, l. 8 to p. 5, l. 2 that is corrected for system loss as taught by Durdina, see Durdina’s p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", and p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2); and
Wf,approach is the mass flow rate of fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 30% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIapproach,SAF and EIapproach,FF are calculated; and (Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 7, p. 5, ll. 3-5);
the approach nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 0.4 (Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 7, p. 5, ll. 6-7).
The motivation of the combination of Application No. 18/892,710 in view of Durdina is the same with the reason for applying Durdina for the rejection of claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claims 8-9, Appl. No. 18/892,710 further teaches the recited limitations of claims 8-9, see claims 8-9 of Appl. No. 18/892,710.
Regarding claim 10, Application No. 18/892,710 in view of Durdina further teaches wherein:
an idle nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
206
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 10, p. 5, ll. 1-3)
wherein:
EIidle,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (Application No. 18/892,710’s EIidle,SAF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel as taught by Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 10, p. 5, ll. 4-7 that is corrected for system loss as taught by Durdina, see Durdina’s p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", and p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2);
EIidle,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 7% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (Application No. 18/892,710’s EIidle,FF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 7% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel as taught by Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 10, p. 5, ll. 8-11 that is corrected for system loss as taught by Durdina, see Durdina’s p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", and p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2); and
Wf,idle is the mass flow rate of fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 7% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which EIidle,SAF and EIidle,FF are calculated; and (Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 10, p. 6, ll. 1-3);
the idle nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 0.2 (Application No. 18/892,710’s claim 10, p. 6, ll. 4-5).
The motivation of the combination of Application No. 18/892,710 in view of Durdina is the same with the reason explained for the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 11-15, Appl. No. 18/892,710 further teaches the recited limitations of claims 11-15, see claims 11-15 of Appl. No. 18/892,710.
Regarding claims 16-17, Application No. 18/892,710 teaches a method of operating a gas turbine engine (claim 17, p. 7, ll. 1-2), the gas turbine engine comprising:
a combustor, comprising a combustion chamber and a plurality of fuel spray nozzles configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber, wherein the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:2 to 1:5 (claim 17, p. 7, ll. 4-16); and
wherein:
an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
79
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(claim 17, p. 7, ll. 17-19)
wherein:
EImaxTO,SAF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) (claim 17, p. 7, ll. 20-22);
EImaxTO,FF is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (claim 17, p. 8, ll. 1-3); and
Wf,maxTO is the mass flow rate of fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (claim 17, p. 8, ll. 4-6);
the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 2; and the method comprises providing fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (claim 17, p. 8, ll. 7-10 and the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow is the fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprising SAF, also see claim 17, p. 7, ll. 17-19).
However, Application No. 18/892,710 does not teach EImaxTO,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and EImaxTO,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
Durdina teaches emissions testing of a gas turbine engine using a sustainable aviation fuel blend (p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8), wherein "All results are reported at the engine exit plane, corrected for thermophoretic loss independent of the particle size and size-dependent particle loss in the sampling and measurement system" (p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution"). Furthermore, Durdina teaches loss-corrected nvPM mass emission indices (p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/892,710 by correcting the parameters EImaxTO, and EImaxTO,FF for system losses, such that EImaxTO,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index and EImaxTO,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in order to obtain more accurate measurements by accounting for thermophoretic loss and size-dependent particle loss (Durdina, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", II. 1-12).
Regarding claims 18-20, Appl. No. 18/892,710 in view of Durdina further teaches the recited limitations of claims 18-20 as demonstrated in the rejections for claims 4, 7, and 10 above, see the teaching at Appl. No. 18/892,710’s claims 18-20 and Durdina’s p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", and p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 17 and their dependents,
i) the recitations of "the combustor is operable in a condition" and "given operating conditions" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the "given operating conditions" are the same as, or different from the "condition" the combustor is operable;
ii) the recitations of "the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles", "an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow" and "Wf,maxTO is the mass flow rate of fuel" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether either one of the MTO modified fuel flow and/or the Wf,maxTO refer to any of the previously claimed fuel flow rates of the different subsets of fuel nozzles;
iii) the recitation of “an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow" itself also renders the claim indefinite because it is currently claimed as a calculated fuel flow that is never used/applied for any purpose and it is further unclear whether said fuel flow is some hypothetical fuel flow rate, or whether said fuel flow rate is physically provided via one or more of the previously claimed fuel nozzles at some point during operation;
iv) the recitation of “EImaxTO,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)” and “the gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising a SAF to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claimed two SAF refer to the same type of SAF or different types of SAF, and it is further unclear whether the claimed two SAF are provided to the engine at the same operation time or different operation times;
v) the recitations of "fuel" and "a fuel" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which fuel(s) of these claimed fuels are related (and how they are related) and which fuel(s) of said claimed fuels are not related.
The same rejections are also applied to the limitations: "a fuel", "operating conditions", “a climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow”, and “the mass flow rate of fuel at around 85% available thrust” in claim 4 and its dependents and claim 18; the limitations: "a fuel", "operating conditions", “an approach nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow”, and “the mass flow rate of fuel at around 30% available thrust”, in claim 7 and its dependents and claim 19; and the limitations: "a fuel", "operating conditions", “an idle nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow”, and “the mass flow rate of fuel at around 7% available thrust”, in claim 10 and its dependents and claim 20.
Regarding claim 4 and its dependents and claim 18, it is unclear whether term “a sustainable aviation fuel” refers to the same type of SAF previously claimed in claim 1/claim 17 or a different type of SAF, and it is unclear whether term “a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel” refers to the same type of fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel previously claimed in claim 1/claim 17 or a different type pf fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel. The same rejections are also applied to terms “a sustainable aviation fuel” and “a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel” in claim 7 and its dependents and claim 19, and claim 10 and its dependents and claim 20.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15, the terms “preferably”, "more preferably", "yet even more preferably", or “further preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term(s) are part of the claimed invention. See also MPEP2173.05(c)(I).
Regarding claim 13, recitation “(condition 1) wherein the ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:4, …; and/or (condition 2) wherein the first subset of fuel spray nozzles includes between 1 and 10 fuel spray nozzles, …; and (condition 3) wherein the second subset of fuel spray nozzles includes between 10 and 25 fuel spray nozzles” is indefinite because: i) terms “and/or” and “and” render the claim unclear of whether the condition 3 is applied to only condition 1, or to only condition 2, or to both of condition 1 and condition 2; and ii) when claim 13 requires condition 1 and one/both of the condition 2 and condition 3, a) it is unclear whether the claimed “between 1 and 10 fuel spray nozzles” included in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles refers to the previously claimed number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles; or a portion of the previously claimed number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles, and b) it is unclear whether the claimed “between 10 and 25 fuel spray nozzles” included in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles refers to the previously claimed number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles; or a portion of the previously claimed number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles.
Regarding claim 14, recitations of “one or more ignitors”, “a respective one or more of the ignitors”, “one or more of the ignitors”, and “another one or more of the ignitors” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which ignitor(s) of these claimed ignitors are related (and how they are related), and which ignitor(s) of said claimed ignitors are not related.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear whether term “SAF” in claim 15 refers to either one of the SAF previously claimed in claim 1; or a different SAF (different type or provided in different operation time).
Regarding claim 16, i) recitation "A method of operating the gas turbine engine of claim 1" is indefinite because the claim is claiming both an apparatus (the gas turbine engine of claim 1) and the method steps of using the apparatus ("A method of operating ... "). Per MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II: "A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011)." For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as a functional limitation added to the apparatus of claim 1; and ii) recitation “providing fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles” is indefinite because the claim depends on claim 1, which already recites "the gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles". It is not clear whether the limitation in claim 16 provides an additional fuel comprising SAF or is the same fuel comprising SAF of claim 1.
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.
With reference to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112b above, the claim(s) could not be understood, but to the extent that they could be understood, a search was performed and the following rejection is made:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWANN 20150134151, refers as SWANN’ 151 thereafter, in view of NPL - Durdina - Reduction of Nonvolatile Particulate Matter Emissions of a Commercial Turbofan Engine at the Ground Level from the Use of a Sustainable Aviation Fuel Blend (provided by IDS), refers as Durdina thereafter, SWANN 20130340324, refers as SWANN’ 324 thereafter, and Summerfield 6857272, as evidenced by NPL - Speth - Black carbon emissions reductions from combustion of alternative jet fuels, refers as Speth thereafter.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 13, SWANN’ 151 teaches the invention as claimed: A gas turbine engine for an aircraft ([0001]), comprising:
a combustor (for engine 28, see Fig. 1 and [0042]), comprising a combustion chamber (where the resultant fuel injected into, [0042]) and a plurality of fuel spray nozzles (a plurality of fuel injector 26s, [0042]) configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (Fig. 1 and [0042]),
a controller (12, Fig. 4) configured to control the supply of the fuel having a suitable fuel composition according to engine thrust ([0049]) and nvPM emissions index (the mass of PM emitted and the number of PM particles emitted, see [0053-0055]), wherein:
an MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is defined as the required mass flow rate of a sustainable aviation fuel (44 in Fig. 4, a mass flow rate of the non-default fuel, e.g., the biofuel having low aromatics content that results in low nvPM emission, [0052, 70]) determined (in step 36, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063]) based on several optional ([0055]) variables including:
a required MTO nvPM emissions index (a proposed fuel composition 35 that achieves nvPM emissions requirement for the current location at the take-off condition during the landing/take-off cycle, Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]);
the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels of the proposed fuel composition (32 per [0060-61]), which may include:
ElmaxTO,SAF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the alternative fuel in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]]) when operating at around 100% available thrust (the take-off condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0110]) for given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (the biofuel having low aromatics content that results low nvPM emission, see [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]]); and
ElmaxTO,FF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the fossil-fuel, which is the default fuel, e.g. kerosene, in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 100% available thrust (the take-off condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0110]) for the given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (the default fuel. e.g., kerosene, [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]); and
the current fuel flow rate to the engine (31; [0059]) Wf,maxTO defined as the mass flow rate of fuel (the mass flow rate of the default fuel, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063 and 0114]) provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26, [0042]) in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 100% available thrust (at the take-off condition during the landing/take-off cycle) for the given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, see Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]);
wherein the MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 0.834 ([0012] teaches varying the proposed fuel composition may include varying the ratio of flow rates of fuels across a range including switching to using entirely one fuel; such that the flow rate of the alternative fuel calculated as the MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow as discussed above, may be as low as zero, which overlaps and falls in the claimed range of less than 0.834 kg/s); and
the gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising a SAF (the biofuel having lower aromatics, [0052, 0118 and 0120]) to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26s, [0042]).
SWANN’ 151 does not teach ElmaxTO,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and ElmaxTO,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
However, Durdina teaches emissions testing of a gas turbine engine using a sustainable aviation fuel blend (p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8), wherein "All results are reported at the engine exit plane, corrected for thermophoretic loss independent of the particle size and size-dependent particle loss in the sampling and measurement system" (p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution"). Furthermore, Durdina teaches loss-corrected nvPM mass emission indices (p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SWANN’ 151 by correcting the parameters EImaxTO, and EImaxTO,FF for system losses in order to obtain more accurate measurements by accounting for thermophoretic loss and size-dependent particle loss (Durdina, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", II. 1-12).
Thus, SWANN '151 in view of Durdina teaches an MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow defined as a function of ElmaxTO,FF, ElmaxTO,SAF-, and Wf,maxTO.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina does not teach said MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow defined by the specific relationship
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
S
A
F
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
.
However, SWANN’ 324 teaches a controller (10) for a gas turbine engine for an aircraft ([0002]) is configured to control the supply of a fuel blend of a fossil-fuel and a sustainable aviation fuel ([0032-0033]) having a suitable fuel composition (results by a calculated blending ratio, [0022]) according to a nvPM emissions index ([0022, 0046-0049]), wherein:
a nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow (a mass flow rate of a biofuel of a fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) and a mass flow rate of fuel (a mass flow rate of a fossil-fuel of the fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) is adjusted relative to one other according to the nvPM emissions index resulted by burning the fuel blend ([0048]); and the suitable fuel composition results by a calculated blending ratio ([0022]) that is calculated in dependence upon a respective aromatic content as expressed as percentage by mass of the fossil-fuel and the biofuel ([0049]),
under the same engine thrust, a reduction of the nvPM emissions index is proportional to a reduction in the aromatic of the blended fuel (as evidenced by Speth, see Figs. 1-3, equation 3, and p. 40).
It would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention to provide SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina with SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth’s adjusting the nvPM emission index modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) and the mass flow rate of fuel (the required mass flow rate of the fossil-based fuel) relative to one other according to a respective nvPM emission index that is proportional to the aromatic content of the biofuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-based fuel, such that an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) is defined in order to reduce soot emission by blending SAF that has a low aromatic content to fossil-based fuel that has a high aromatic content (SWANN' 324, [0004]) using a simplified relationship between the black carbon emissions and aromatic content as evidenced by Speth (Speth's abstract and SWANN' 324, [0049]).
Thus, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth’s gas turbine engine teaches all the structures and relationships, i.e., for a specific fuel composition of a fuel blend, the respective required flow rates of the component fuels is determined by the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth) and the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels determine the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth), resulting in the claimed equation:
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
S
A
F
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
. Note, the term emissions "index" is reasonably interpreted to be scaled by other variables/parameters/relationships, such as aromaticity, while remaining in compliance with the claims, especially in view of the fact that the nvPM emissions index ratio, i.e.,
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
S
A
F
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
F
F
, is a natural number.
In addition to SWANN’ 151 (in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth) teaching the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow being less than 0.834 kg/s, SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth further teaches a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results effective variable of a blend ratio of the sustainable aviation fuel and the fossil-fuel that controls nvPM emissions (SWANN’ 324’s [0048-0049] and Speth’s p. 40).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results-effective variable that controls nvPM emissions. Thus, the claimed limitation of the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.834 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the sustainable aviation fuel of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth to have the mass flow rate of being less than 0.834 kg/s, as it involves only adjusting a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth disclosed to require adjustment in order to control nvPM emissions.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth, wherein the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.834 in order to control nvPM.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth does not teach wherein said plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein said combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:4.
However, Summerfield teaches a gas turbine engine for an aircraft (see Fig. 1), comprising: a combustor (6), comprising a combustion chamber (in the combustor 6, see Figs. 1 and 4) and a plurality of fuel spray nozzles (fuel injectors 18s connected to manifold 22 and 24, in Fig. 4) configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (fuel flow G and H in Fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles (the two injector 18s connected to manifold 24, see Fig. 4) and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles (the eight injector 18s connected to manifold 22, see Fig. 4),
wherein the combustor is operable in a condition (associated with a flow fuel flows, col. 4, ll. 60-65) in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles (each of the two injector 18s connected to manifold 24, see Fig. 4) is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than (col. 4, ll. 60-65) each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles (each of the eight injector 18s connected to manifold 22, see Fig. 4),
wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:4 (number of ration is 1:4, see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention to provide SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth with Summerfield’s first subset of fuel spray nozzles and second subset of fuel spray nozzles, such that
the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:4
in order to increase the weak extinction limit of the combustor in the selected regions at the expense of overall uniform fuel distribution at predetermined engine operating conditions (Summerfield, col. 2, ll. 10-15).
Regarding claims 4-6, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN’ 151 further teaches wherein: a climb nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is defined as the required mass flow rate of a sustainable aviation fuel (44 in Fig. 4, a mass flow rate of the non-default fuel, e.g., the biofuel having low aromatics content that results in low nvPM emission, [0052, 70]) determined (in step 36, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063]) based on several optional ([0055]) variables including:
a required climb nvPM emissions index (a proposed fuel composition 35 that achieves nvPM emissions requirement for the current location at the climb condition during the landing/take-off cycle, Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0111, and [0120]);
the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels of the proposed fuel composition (32 per [0060-61]), which may include:
Elclimb,SAF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the alternative fuel in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 85% available thrust (the climb condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0111]) for the given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (the biofuel having low aromatics content that results low nvPM emission, see [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0111, and [0120]);
Elclimb,FF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the fossil-fuel, which is the default fuel, e.g. kerosene, in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 85% available thrust (the climb condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0111]) for the same operating conditions at which Elclimb,SAF is calculated (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (the default fuel. e.g., kerosene, [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0111, and 0120]); and
the current fuel flow rate to the engine (31; [0059]) Wf,climb defined as the mass flow rate of fuel (the mass flow rate of the default fuel, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063 and 0114]) provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26, [0042]) in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 85% available thrust (at the climb condition during the landing/take-off cycle) for the same operating conditions at which Elclimb,SAF and Elclimb,FF is calculated (the current ambient condition and current location, see Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0111, and [0120]);
wherein the climb nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 0.498 ([0012] teaches varying the proposed fuel composition may include varying the ratio of flow rates of fuels across a range including switching to using entirely one fuel; such that the flowrate of the alternative fuel calculated as the climb nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow as discussed above, may be as low as zero, which overlaps and falls in the claimed range of less than 0.498 kg/s).
SWANN’ 151 does not teach Elclimb,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 85% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel and Elclimb,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 85% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which Elclimb,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
However, Durdina further teaches emissions testing of a gas turbine engine using a sustainable aviation fuel blend (p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8), wherein "All results are reported at the engine exit plane, corrected for thermophoretic loss independent of the particle size and size-dependent particle loss in the sampling and measurement system" (p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution"). Furthermore, Durdina teaches loss-corrected nvPM mass emission indices (p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth by correcting the parameters EIclimb, and EIclimb,FF for system losses for the same reason for applying Durdina to claim 1 as discussed above.
Thus, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina further teaches a climb nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow defined as a function of Elclimb,FF, Elclimb,SAF-, and Wf,climb.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth does not teach said climb nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is a climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow defined by the specific relationship
E
l
c
l
i
m
b
,
S
A
F
E
l
c
l
i
m
b
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
c
l
i
m
b
.
However, SWANN’ 324 teaches the controller (10) configured to control the supply of a fuel blend of a fossil-fuel and a sustainable aviation fuel ([0032-0033]) having a suitable fuel composition (results by a calculated blending ratio, [0022]) according to a nvPM emissions index ([0022, 0046-0049]), wherein:
a nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow (a mass flow rate of a biofuel of a fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) and a mass flow rate of fuel (a mass flow rate of a fossil-fuel of the fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) is adjusted relative to one other according to the nvPM emissions index resulted by burning the fuel blend ([0048]); and the suitable fuel composition results by a calculated blending ratio ([0022]) that is calculated in dependence upon a respective aromatic content as expressed as percentage by mass of the fossil-fuel and the biofuel ([0049]),
under the same engine thrust, a reduction of the nvPM emissions index is proportional to a reduction in the aromatic of the blended fuel (as evidenced by Speth, see Figs. 1-3, equation 3, and p. 40).
It would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention to provide SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth with SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth’s adjusting the nvPM emission index modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) and the mass flow rate of fuel (the required mass flow rate of the fossil-based fuel) relative to one other according to a respective nvPM emission index that is proportional to the aromatic content of the biofuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-based fuel, such that a climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) is defined for the same reason for applying SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth to claim 1 as discussed above.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth gas turbine engine teaches all the structures and relationships, i.e., for a specific fuel composition of a fuel blend, the respective required flow rates of the component fuels is determined by the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth) and the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels determine the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth), resulting in the claimed equation:
E
l
c
l
i
m
b
,
S
A
F
E
l
c
l
i
m
b
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
c
l
i
m
b
. Note, the term emissions "index" is reasonably interpreted to be scaled by other variables/parameters/relationships, such as aromaticity, while remaining in compliance with the claims, especially in view of the fact that the nvPM emissions index ratio, i.e.,
E
l
c
l
i
m
b
,
S
A
F
E
l
c
l
i
m
b
,
F
F
, is a natural number.
In addition to SWANN’ 151 (in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth) teaching the climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow being less than 0.498 kg/s, SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth further teaches a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results effective variable of a blend ratio of the sustainable aviation fuel and the fossil-fuel that controls nvPM emissions (SWANN’ 324’s [0048-0049] and Speth’s p. 40).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results-effective variable that controls nvPM emissions. Thus, the claimed limitation of the climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.498 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the sustainable aviation fuel of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth to have the mass flow rate of being less than 0.498 kg/s, as it involves only adjusting a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth disclosed to require adjustment in order to control nvPM emissions.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth, wherein the climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.498 in order to control nvPM.
Regarding claims 7-9, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN’ 151 further teaches wherein: an approach nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is defined as the required mass flow rate of a sustainable aviation fuel (44 in Fig. 4, a mass flow rate of the non-default fuel, e.g., the biofuel having low aromatics content that results in low nvPM emission, [0052, 70]) determined (in step 36, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063]) based on several optional ([0055]) variables including:
a required approach nvPM emissions index (a proposed fuel composition 35 that achieves nvPM emissions requirement for the current location at the approach condition during the landing/take-off cycle, Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0108, and [0120]);
the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels of the proposed fuel composition (32 per [0060-61]), which may include:
Elapproach,SAF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the alternative fuel in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 30% available thrust (the approach condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0108]) for the given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (the biofuel having low aromatics content that results low nvPM emission, see [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0111, and [0120]);
Elapproach,FF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the fossil-fuel, which is the default fuel, e.g. kerosene, in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 30% available thrust (the approach condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0108]) for the same operating conditions at which Elapproach,SAF is calculated (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (the default fuel. e.g., kerosene, [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0111, and 0120]); and
the current fuel flow rate to the engine (31; [0059]) Wf,approach defined as the mass flow rate of fuel (the mass flow rate of the default fuel, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063 and 0114]) provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26, [0042]) in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 30% available thrust (at the approach condition during the landing/take-off cycle) for the same operating conditions at which Elapproach,SAF and Elapproach,FF is calculated (the current ambient condition and current location, see Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0108, and [0120]);
wherein the approach nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 0.0526 ([0012] teaches varying the proposed fuel composition may include varying the ratio of flow rates of fuels across a range including switching to using entirely one fuel; such that the flowrate of the alternative fuel calculated as the approach nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow as discussed above, may be as low as zero, which overlaps and falls in the claimed range of less than 0.0526 kg/s).
SWANN’ 151 does not teach Elapproach,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 30% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel and Elapproach,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 30% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which Elapproach,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
However, Durdina further teaches emissions testing of a gas turbine engine using a sustainable aviation fuel blend (p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8), wherein "All results are reported at the engine exit plane, corrected for thermophoretic loss independent of the particle size and size-dependent particle loss in the sampling and measurement system" (p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution"). Furthermore, Durdina teaches loss-corrected nvPM mass emission indices (p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth by correcting the parameters EIapproach,SAF, and EIapproach,FF for system losses for the same reason for applying Durdina to claim 1 as discussed above.
Thus, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina further teaches an approach nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow defined as a function of Elapproach,FF, Elapproach,SAF-, and Wf,approach.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth does not teach said approach nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is an approach nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow defined by the specific relationship
E
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
,
S
A
F
E
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.
However, SWANN’ 324 teaches the controller (10) configured to control the supply of a fuel blend of a fossil-fuel and a sustainable aviation fuel ([0032-0033]) having a suitable fuel composition (results by a calculated blending ratio, [0022]) according to a nvPM emissions index ([0022, 0046-0049]), wherein:
a nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow (a mass flow rate of a biofuel of a fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) and a mass flow rate of fuel (a mass flow rate of a fossil-fuel of the fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) is adjusted relative to one other according to the nvPM emissions index resulted by burning the fuel blend ([0048]); and the suitable fuel composition results by a calculated blending ratio ([0022]) that is calculated in dependence upon a respective aromatic content as expressed as percentage by mass of the fossil-fuel and the biofuel ([0049]),
under the same engine thrust, a reduction of the nvPM emissions index is proportional to a reduction in the aromatic of the blended fuel (as evidenced by Speth, see Figs. 1-3, equation 3, and p. 40).
It would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention to provide SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth with SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth’s adjusting the nvPM emission index modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) and the mass flow rate of fuel (the required mass flow rate of the fossil-based fuel) relative to one other according to a respective nvPM emission index that is proportional to the aromatic content of the biofuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-based fuel, such that a climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) is defined for the same reason for applying SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth to claim 1 as discussed above.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth gas turbine engine teaches all the structures and relationships, i.e., for a specific fuel composition of a fuel blend, the respective required flow rates of the component fuels is determined by the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth) and the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels determine the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth), resulting in the claimed equation:
E
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
,
S
A
F
E
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
. Note, the term emissions "index" is reasonably interpreted to be scaled by other variables/parameters/relationships, such as aromaticity, while remaining in compliance with the claims, especially in view of the fact that the nvPM emissions index ratio, i.e.,
E
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
,
S
A
F
E
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
t
,
F
F
, is a natural number.
In addition to SWANN’ 151 (in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth) teaching the approach nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow being less than 0.0526 kg/s, SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth further teaches a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results effective variable of a blend ratio of the sustainable aviation fuel and the fossil-fuel that controls nvPM emissions (SWANN’ 324’s [0048-0049] and Speth’s p. 40).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results-effective variable that controls nvPM emissions. Thus, the claimed limitation of the approach nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.0526 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the sustainable aviation fuel of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth to have the mass flow rate of being less than 0.0526 kg/s, as it involves only adjusting a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth disclosed to require adjustment in order to control nvPM emissions.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth, wherein the approach nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.0526 in order to control nvPM.
Regarding claims 10-12, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN’ 151 further teaches wherein: an idle nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is defined as the required mass flow rate of a sustainable aviation fuel (44 in Fig. 4, a mass flow rate of the non-default fuel, e.g., the biofuel having low aromatics content that results in low nvPM emission, [0052, 70]) determined (in step 36, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063]) based on several optional ([0055]) variables including:
a required idle nvPM emissions index (a proposed fuel composition 35 that achieves nvPM emissions requirement for the current location at the idle condition during the landing/take-off cycle, Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0109, and [0120]);
the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels of the proposed fuel composition (32 per [0060-61]), which may include:
Elidle,SAF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the alternative fuel in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 7% available thrust (the idle condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0109]) for the given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (the biofuel having low aromatics content that results low nvPM emission, see [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0111, and [0120]);
Elidle,FF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the fossil-fuel, which is the default fuel, e.g. kerosene, in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 7% available thrust (the idle condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0109]) for the same operating conditions at which Elidle,SAF is calculated (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (the default fuel. e.g., kerosene, [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0109, and 0120]); and
the current fuel flow rate to the engine (31; [0059]) Wf,idle defined as the mass flow rate of fuel (the mass flow rate of the default fuel, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063 and 0114]) provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26, [0042]) in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 7% available thrust (at the idle condition during the landing/take-off cycle) for the same operating conditions at which Elidle,SAF and Elidle,FF is calculated (the current ambient condition and current location, see Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0109, and [0120]);
wherein the idle nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 0.0113 ([0012] teaches varying the proposed fuel composition may include varying the ratio of flow rates of fuels across a range including switching to using entirely one fuel; such that the flowrate of the alternative fuel calculated as the idle nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow as discussed above, may be as low as zero, which overlaps and falls in the claimed range of less than 0.0113 kg/s).
SWANN’ 151 does not teach Elidle,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions, or for other different operating conditions, if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel and Elidle,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 7% available thrust for the same operating conditions at which Elidle,SAF is calculated if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
However, Durdina further teaches emissions testing of a gas turbine engine using a sustainable aviation fuel blend (p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8), wherein "All results are reported at the engine exit plane, corrected for thermophoretic loss independent of the particle size and size-dependent particle loss in the sampling and measurement system" (p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution"). Furthermore, Durdina teaches loss-corrected nvPM mass emission indices (p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth by correcting the parameters EIidle,SAF, and EIidle,FF for system losses for the same reason for applying Durdina to claim 1 as discussed above.
Thus, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina further teaches an idle nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow defined as a function of Elidle,FF, Elidle,SAF-, and Wf,idle.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth does not teach said idle nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is an idle nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow defined by the specific relationship
E
l
i
d
l
e
,
S
A
F
E
l
i
d
l
e
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
i
d
l
e
.
However, SWANN’ 324 teaches the controller (10) configured to control the supply of a fuel blend of a fossil-fuel and a sustainable aviation fuel ([0032-0033]) having a suitable fuel composition (results by a calculated blending ratio, [0022]) according to a nvPM emissions index ([0022, 0046-0049]), wherein:
a nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow (a mass flow rate of a biofuel of a fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) and a mass flow rate of fuel (a mass flow rate of a fossil-fuel of the fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) is adjusted relative to one other according to the nvPM emissions index resulted by burning the fuel blend ([0048]); and the suitable fuel composition results by a calculated blending ratio ([0022]) that is calculated in dependence upon a respective aromatic content as expressed as percentage by mass of the fossil-fuel and the biofuel ([0049]),
under the same engine thrust, a reduction of the nvPM emissions index is proportional to a reduction in the aromatic of the blended fuel (as evidenced by Speth, see Figs. 1-3, equation 3, and p. 40).
It would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention to provide SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth with SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth’s adjusting the nvPM emission index modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) and the mass flow rate of fuel (the required mass flow rate of the fossil-based fuel) relative to one other according to a respective nvPM emission index that is proportional to the aromatic content of the biofuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-based fuel, such that a climb nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) is defined for the same reason for applying SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth to claim 1 as discussed above.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth gas turbine engine teaches all the structures and relationships, i.e., for a specific fuel composition of a fuel blend, the respective required flow rates of the component fuels is determined by the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth) and the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels determine the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth), resulting in the claimed equation:
E
l
i
d
l
e
,
S
A
F
E
l
i
d
l
e
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
i
d
l
e
. Note, the term emissions "index" is reasonably interpreted to be scaled by other variables/parameters/relationships, such as aromaticity, while remaining in compliance with the claims, especially in view of the fact that the nvPM emissions index ratio, i.e.,
E
l
i
d
l
e
,
S
A
F
E
l
i
d
l
e
,
F
F
, is a natural number.
In addition to SWANN’ 151 (in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth) teaching the idle nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow being less than 0.0113 kg/s, SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth further teaches a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results effective variable of a blend ratio of the sustainable aviation fuel and the fossil-fuel that controls nvPM emissions (SWANN’ 324’s [0048-0049] and Speth’s p. 40).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results-effective variable that controls nvPM emissions. Thus, the claimed limitation of the idle nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.0113 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the sustainable aviation fuel of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth to have the mass flow rate of being less than 0.0113 kg/s, as it involves only adjusting a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth disclosed to require adjustment in order to control nvPM emissions.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth, wherein the idle nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 0.0113 in order to control nvPM.
Regarding claim 14, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth further teaches the combustor (having SWANN’ 151’s combustion chamber 28) comprises one or more ignitors (Summerfield’s 26s in Summerfield’s Fig. 4), wherein each of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles (Summerfield’s two injector 18s connected to Summerfield’s manifold 24 in Summerfield’s Fig. 4) is located nearer a respective one or more of the ignitors than the second subset (Summerfield’s eight injector 18s connected to Summerfield’s manifold 22 in Summerfield’s Fig. 4).
The motivation of the combination of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth is the same with the reason for applying Summerfield for claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claim 15, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth further teaches the fuel (SWANN’ 151’s a blended fuel of biofuel and fossil-based fuel having a suitable fuel composition as taught by SWANN’ 151’s [0049 and 0052]) provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (SWANN’ 151’s 26s) comprises a %SAF in the range of 50% to 100% (as taught by SWANN’ 324’s [0059] the biofuel contained in the blended fuel can have a percentage between from 0% to 100%).
The motivation of the combination of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth is the same with the reason for applying SWANN’ 324 for claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claim 16, SWANN’ 151 further teaches a method of operating the gas turbine engine (performed by controller 12), the method comprising providing fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel ([0052]) to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26, [0042])
Regarding claim 17, SWANN’ 151 teaches the invention as claimed: A method of operating a (performed by controller 12) gas turbine engine ([0001]), the gas turbine engine comprising:
a combustor (for engine 28, see Fig. 1 and [0042]), comprising a combustion chamber (where the resultant fuel injected into, [0042]) and a plurality of fuel spray nozzles (a plurality of fuel injector 26s, [0042]) configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (Fig. 1 and [0042]),
a controller (12, Fig. 4) configured to control the supply of the fuel having a suitable fuel composition according to engine thrust ([0049]) and nvPM emissions index (the mass of PM emitted and the number of PM particles emitted, see [0053-0055]), wherein:
an MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is defined as the required mass flow rate of a sustainable aviation fuel (44 in Fig. 4, a mass flow rate of the non-default fuel, e.g., the biofuel having low aromatics content that results in low nvPM emission, [0052, 70]) determined (in step 36, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063]) based on several optional ([0055]) variables including:
a required MTO nvPM emissions index (a proposed fuel composition 35 that achieves nvPM emissions requirement for the current location at the take-off condition during the landing/take-off cycle, Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]);
the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels of the proposed fuel composition (32 per [0060-61]), which may include:
ElmaxTO,SAF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the alternative fuel in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]]) when operating at around 100% available thrust (the take-off condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0110]) for given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (the biofuel having low aromatics content that results low nvPM emission, see [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]]); and
ElmaxTO,FF defined as the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine (the mass of PM and the number of PM particles emitted per unit mass of the fossil-fuel, which is the default fuel, e.g. kerosene, in the proposed fuel composition 35 burned, EIm and EIn, [0060-0061, 0114, and 0120]) when operating at around 100% available thrust (the take-off condition during landing/take-off cycle, Fig. 6 and [0053 and 0110]) for the given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, [0049 and 0060]) if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel (the default fuel. e.g., kerosene, [0049, 0052-0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]); and
the current fuel flow rate to the engine (31; [0059]) Wf,maxTO defined as the mass flow rate of fuel (the mass flow rate of the default fuel, Fig. 4 and [0060-0063 and 0114]) provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26, [0042]) in kg/s when the gas turbine engine is operating at around 100% available thrust (at the take-off condition during the landing/take-off cycle) for the given operating conditions (the current ambient condition and current location, see Figs. 4 and 6, [0049, 0053, 0060-0063, 0110, and [0120]);
wherein the MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s is less than 2 ([0012] teaches varying the proposed fuel composition may include varying the ratio of flow rates of fuels across a range including switching to using entirely one fuel; such that the flow rate of the alternative fuel calculated as the MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow as discussed above, may be as low as zero, which overlaps and falls in the claimed range of less than 2 kg/s); and
the method comprises providing fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) (the biofuel having lower aromatics, [0052, 0118 and 0120]) to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (26s, [0042]).
SWANN’ 151 does not teach ElmaxTO,SAF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and ElmaxTO,FF is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine when operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions if a fuel provided to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles is a fossil-based hydrocarbon fuel.
However, Durdina teaches emissions testing of a gas turbine engine using a sustainable aviation fuel blend (p. 14576, Abstract, II. 4-8), wherein "All results are reported at the engine exit plane, corrected for thermophoretic loss independent of the particle size and size-dependent particle loss in the sampling and measurement system" (p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution"). Furthermore, Durdina teaches loss-corrected nvPM mass emission indices (p. 14580, caption of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SWANN’ 151 by correcting the parameters EImaxTO, and EImaxTO,FF for system losses in order to obtain more accurate measurements by accounting for thermophoretic loss and size-dependent particle loss (Durdina, p. 14578, para. titled "Particle Loss Correction and Size Distribution", II. 1-12).
Thus, SWANN '151 in view of Durdina teaches an MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow defined as a function of ElmaxTO,FF, ElmaxTO,SAF-, and Wf,maxTO.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina does not teach said MTO nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow is an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow defined by the specific relationship
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
S
A
F
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
.
However, SWANN’ 324 teaches a controller (10) for a gas turbine engine for an aircraft ([0002]) is configured to control the supply of a fuel blend of a fossil-fuel and a sustainable aviation fuel ([0032-0033]) having a suitable fuel composition (results by a calculated blending ratio, [0022]) according to a nvPM emissions index ([0022, 0046-0049]), wherein:
a nvPM emissions index modified fuel flow (a mass flow rate of a biofuel of a fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) and a mass flow rate of fuel (a mass flow rate of a fossil-fuel of the fuel blend having the suitable fuel composition, [0048]) is adjusted relative to one other according to the nvPM emissions index resulted by burning the fuel blend ([0048]); and the suitable fuel composition results by a calculated blending ratio ([0022]) that is calculated in dependence upon a respective aromatic content as expressed as percentage by mass of the fossil-fuel and the biofuel ([0049]),
under the same engine thrust, a reduction of the nvPM emissions index is proportional to a reduction in the aromatic of the blended fuel (as evidenced by Speth, see Figs. 1-3, equation 3, and p. 40).
It would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention to provide SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina with SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth’s adjusting the nvPM emission index modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) and the mass flow rate of fuel (the required mass flow rate of the fossil-based fuel) relative to one other according to a respective nvPM emission index that is proportional to the aromatic content of the biofuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-based fuel, such that an MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow (the required mass fuel flow rate of biofuel) is defined in order to reduce soot emission by blending SAF that has a low aromatic content to fossil-based fuel that has a high aromatic content (SWANN' 324, [0004]) using a simplified relationship between the black carbon emissions and aromatic content as evidenced by Speth (Speth's abstract and SWANN' 324, [0049]).
Thus, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth’s gas turbine engine teaches all the structures and relationships, i.e., for a specific fuel composition of a fuel blend, the respective required flow rates of the component fuels is determined by the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth) and the respective aromatic contents of the component fuels determine the nvPM emissions indexes of the component fuels (as taught by SWANN’ 324 and as evidenced by Speth), resulting in the claimed equation:
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
S
A
F
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
F
F
×
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
. Note, the term emissions "index" is reasonably interpreted to be scaled by other variables/parameters/relationships, such as aromaticity, while remaining in compliance with the claims, especially in view of the fact that the nvPM emissions index ratio, i.e.,
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
S
A
F
E
l
m
a
x
T
O
,
F
F
, is a natural number.
In addition to SWANN’ 151 (in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth) teaching the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow being less than 2 kg/s, SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth further teaches a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results effective variable of a blend ratio of the sustainable aviation fuel and the fossil-fuel that controls nvPM emissions (SWANN’ 324’s [0048-0049] and Speth’s p. 40).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel is a results-effective variable that controls nvPM emissions. Thus, the claimed limitation of the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 2 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the sustainable aviation fuel of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth to have the mass flow rate of being less than 2 kg/s, as it involves only adjusting a ratio of the aromatic content of the sustainable aviation fuel and the aromatic content of the fossil-fuel SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth disclosed to require adjustment in order to control nvPM emissions.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth, wherein the MTO nvPM emissions index ratio-modified fuel flow of the gas turbine engine in kg/s being less than 2 in order to control nvPM.
SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth not teach wherein said plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein said combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:2 to 1:5.
However, Summerfield teaches a gas turbine engine for an aircraft (see Fig. 1), comprising: a combustor (6), comprising a combustion chamber (in the combustor 6, see Figs. 1 and 4) and a plurality of fuel spray nozzles (fuel injectors 18s connected to manifold 22 and 24, in Fig. 4) configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (fuel flow G and H in Fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles (the two injector 18s connected to manifold 24, see Fig. 4) and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles (the eight injector 18s connected to manifold 22, see Fig. 4),
wherein the combustor is operable in a condition (associated with a flow fuel flows, col. 4, ll. 60-65) in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles (each of the two injector 18s connected to manifold 24, see Fig. 4) is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than (col. 4, ll. 60-65) each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles (each of the eight injector 18s connected to manifold 22, see Fig. 4),
wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:2 to 1:5 (number of ration is 1:4, see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention to provide SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina and SWANN’ 324 as evidenced by Speth with Summerfield’s a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, such that
the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:2 to 1:5
in order to increase the weak extinction limit of the combustor in the selected regions at the expense of overall uniform fuel distribution at predetermined engine operating conditions (Summerfield, col. 2, ll. 10-15).
Regarding claim 18, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth further teaches the claimed limitations, see the rejection for claims 4-6 above.
The motivation of the combination of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth is the same with the reasons for applying Summerfield for claim 17 as explained above.
Regarding claim 19, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth further teaches the claimed limitations, see the rejection for claims 7-9 above.
The motivation of the combination of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth is the same with the reason for applying Summerfield for claim 17 as explained above.
Regarding claim 20, SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth further teaches the claimed limitations, see the rejection for claims 10-12 above.
The motivation of the combination of SWANN’ 151 in view of Durdina, SWANN’ 324, and Summerfield as evidenced by Speth is the same with the reason for applying Summerfield for claim 17 as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JINGCHEN LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights