DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 06/13/2025 which claims foreign priority to India application 202411046887 filed on 06/18/2024. Claims 1 – 18 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5 and 14 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “closed” in Claim 5 is used by the claim to mean “open,” while the accepted meaning is “a sealed system where fluid continuously circulates between a pump and an actuator (like a motor or heat exchanger) without returning to a reservoir.” Claim 1, ll. 7 – 8 recites “flowing the hydrogen gas produced by cracking the ammonia vapor to a combustor of the turbomachine” which describes an “open” ammonia vapor circuit because the cracked ammonia, i.e., the hydrogen and nitrogen gases, flowed into the combustor where the hydrogen gas would have mixed with compressed air to form a combustible mixture that would have burned inside the combustor to produce combustion gases to drive the turbine of the turbomachine. Specification Para. [0041] disclosed “Thus, cracking the ammonia vapor may result in a gaseous mixture of hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas being produced. The hydrogen-containing gas mixture may then be flowed to a combustor for use as a fuel, where the hydrogen-containing gas mixture is burned to produce combustion gases that are provided to a turbine”. Since the ammonia flowed through and out of the “ammonia vapor circuit” said “ammonia vapor circuit” was “open” and not closed. In a “closed ammonia vapor circuit” a compressor would have repeatedly cycled the same ammonia vapor in a continuous loop around the “closed ammonia vapor circuit”. The term “closed ammonia vapor circuit” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term “closed ammonia vapor circuit” is interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “closed” in Claim 14 is used by the claim to mean “open,” while the accepted meaning is “a sealed system where fluid continuously circulates between a pump and an actuator (like a motor or heat exchanger) without returning to a reservoir.” Claim 10, ll. 7 – 8 recites “flowing the hydrogen gas produced by cracking the ammonia vapor to a combustor of the turbomachine” which describes an “open” ammonia vapor circuit because the cracked ammonia, i.e., the hydrogen and nitrogen gases, flowed into the combustor where the hydrogen gas would have mixed with compressed air to form a combustible mixture that would have burned inside the combustor to produce combustion gases to drive the turbine of the turbomachine. Specification Para. [0041] disclosed “Thus, cracking the ammonia vapor may result in a gaseous mixture of hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas being produced. The hydrogen-containing gas mixture may then be flowed to a combustor for use as a fuel, where the hydrogen-containing gas mixture is burned to produce combustion gases that are provided to a turbine”. Since the ammonia flowed through and out of the “ammonia vapor circuit” said “ammonia vapor circuit” was “open” and not closed. In a “closed ammonia vapor circuit” a compressor would have repeatedly cycled the same ammonia vapor in a continuous loop around the “closed ammonia vapor circuit”. The term “closed ammonia vapor circuit” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term “closed ammonia vapor circuit” is interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Callas (8,220,268).
Regarding Claim 1, Callas discloses, in the sole figure, all the claimed limitations including a method of operating a turbomachine (10 – gas turbine engine – Col. 2, ll. 55 - 65), the method comprising: directing a flow of ammonia vapor (in line 48, Col. 5, ll. 10 - 20) to one or more hot gas path components (46 - Col. 5, ll. 40 – 45 “high temperature exhaust”) of the turbomachine, whereby heat is transferred to the ammonia vapor from the one or more hot gas path components (Col. 5, ll. 40 – 45 “the fuel may then be directed through heat exchanger 46 to absorb additional heat from the high temperature exhaust exiting turbine section 16.”); cracking the ammonia vapor by the heat from the one or more hot gas path components (Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “After exiting heat exchanger 46, the fuel may be directed through catalytic cracker 50 for further conditioning before entering combustion chamber 26”), whereby a hydrogen gas and a nitrogen gas are produced (cracking ammonia inherently produced hydrogen gas and a nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2); and flowing (Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50) the hydrogen gas (H2) produced by cracking the ammonia vapor to a combustor (26) of the turbomachine (10).
Re Claim 2, Callas discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including further comprising flowing the ammonia vapor across a catalyst (inside 50, i.e., Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “… catalytic cracker 50”), wherein [The following is the designed and intended use of an ammonia catalytic cracker.] the ammonia vapor is cracked by interaction with the catalyst and by the heat from the one or more hot gas path components.
Re Claim 3, Callas discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, in Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50, wherein the catalyst (inside 50) is downstream of the one or more hot gas path components (46), whereby the ammonia vapor is heated by the one or more hot gas path components (46) before flowing the ammonia vapor across the catalyst (inside 50).
Re Claim 4, Callas discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including further comprising providing a flow of liquid ammonia to a cooling air system (38) of the turbomachine (10) and generating the flow of ammonia vapor from the liquid ammonia in the cooling air system (38) of the turbomachine.
Re Claim 6, Callas discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including further comprising flowing the nitrogen gas produced by cracking the ammonia vapor (inside 50) to the combustor (26) of the turbomachine. As discussed in Claim 1 above, cracking ammonia inherently produced hydrogen gas and a nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2 and both the hydrogen gas and the nitrogen gas flowed into the combustor (26) of the turbomachine.
Re Claim 7, Callas discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein directing the flow of ammonia vapor to the one or more hot gas path components (46) of the turbomachine (10) comprises flowing the ammonia vapor through a cooling circuit (ammonia vapor flow path inside 46) within at least one of the one or more hot gas path components (46) of the turbomachine (10). Col. 5, ll. 40 – 45 disclosed that “the fuel may then be directed through heat exchanger 46 to absorb additional heat from the high temperature exhaust exiting turbine section 16”; therefore, the high temperature exhaust gases were cooled by the flow of ammonia vapor absorbing heat from said high temperature exhaust gases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas (8,220,268) in view of Cunha et al. (5,634,766).
Re Claim 5, Callas teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the cooling air system (38) and the combustor (26) of the turbomachine form a closed ammonia vapor circuit [As discussed in the 112(b) section above, “closed ammonia vapor circuit” is interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’ since the cracked ammonia vapor flowed out of said circuit and into the combustor where the cracked ammonia vapor burned and created combustion gases.].
Callas, as discussed above, is silent on a turbine section of the turbomachine being part of the “closed ammonia vapor circuit” [interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’]. Callas further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that the one or more hot gas path components, i.e., heat exchanger (46), could have a different location such as between the low pressure turbine (16a) and the recuperator (34).
Cunha teaches, in Figs. 1 – 26, a similar turbomachine (10) having a first stage nozzle heat exchanger (54 - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 8, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40) in a turbine section (20) of the turbomachine (10). As shown in Fig. 4 and discussed in Col. 10, ll. 15 – 35, a cooling gas flowed into inlet (82) then through a plurality of cooling channels inside the first stage nozzle before the now heated cooling gas flowed out through outlet (84).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Callas with the first stage nozzle heat exchanger, taught by Cunha, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbomachine/gas turbine including one or more hot gas path components, a combustor, a catalytic cracker for ammonia, and a hot gas path component being a heat exchanger inside a first stage nozzle in a turbine section, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the hot gas path component being a first stage nozzle heat exchanger in a turbine section, taught by Cunha, for the hot gas path component (heat exchanger 46), taught by Callas, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ammonia vapor flowing into, through, and out of the first stage nozzle would have facilitated increasing the operational life of the first stage nozzle by cooling, i.e., absorbing heat, said first stage nozzle during operation of the turbomachine/gas turbine. Absorbing heat from the first stage nozzle would have facilitated cracking the ammonia vapor into hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2, because ammonic cracking was an endothermic process, i.e., energy usually in the form of heat was required to drive the process. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Callas, i.v., Cunha, would have had the cooling air system, a turbine section of the turbomachine (in this case the first stage nozzle), and the combustor of the turbomachine form a closed ammonia vapor circuit [interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’].
Re Claims 8 and 9, Callas teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 8) wherein the one or more hot gas path components of the turbomachine comprises a nozzle in a turbine section of the turbomachine and (Claim 9) wherein the nozzle is a first stage nozzle. Callas further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that the one or more hot gas path components, i.e., heat exchanger (46), could have a different location such as between the low pressure turbine (16a) and the recuperator (34).
Cunha teaches, in Figs. 1 – 26, a similar turbomachine (10) having a first stage nozzle heat exchanger (54 - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 8, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40) in a turbine section (20) of the turbomachine (10). As shown in Fig. 4 and discussed in Col. 10, ll. 15 – 35, a cooling gas flowed into inlet (82) then through a plurality of cooling channels inside the first stage nozzle before the now heated cooling gas flowed out through outlet (84).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Callas with the first stage nozzle heat exchanger, taught by Cunha, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbomachine/gas turbine including one or more hot gas path components, a combustor, a catalytic cracker for ammonia, and a hot gas path component being a heat exchanger inside a first stage nozzle in a turbine section, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the hot gas path component being a first stage nozzle heat exchanger in a turbine section, taught by Cunha, for the hot gas path component (heat exchanger 46), taught by Callas, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ammonia vapor flowing into, through, and out of the first stage nozzle would have facilitated increasing the operational life of the first stage nozzle by cooling, i.e., absorbing heat, said first stage nozzle during operation of the turbomachine/gas turbine. Absorbing heat from the first stage nozzle would have facilitated cracking the ammonia vapor into hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2, because ammonic cracking was an endothermic process, i.e., energy usually in the form of heat was required to drive the process. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 10 – 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas (8,220,268) in view of Ito et al. (2024/0011435A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Callas teaches, in the sole figure, the invention as claimed, including a turbomachine (10 – gas turbine engine – Col. 2, ll. 55 - 65), comprising: one or more hot gas path components (46 - Col. 5, ll. 40 – 45 “high temperature exhaust”); a combustor (26); directing a flow of ammonia vapor (in line 48, Col. 5, ll. 10 - 20) to one or more hot gas path components (46 - Col. 5, ll. 40 – 45 “high temperature exhaust”) of the turbomachine, whereby heat is transferred to the ammonia vapor from the one or more hot gas path components (Col. 5, ll. 40 – 45 “the fuel may then be directed through heat exchanger 46 to absorb additional heat from the high temperature exhaust exiting turbine section 16.”); cracking the ammonia vapor by the heat from the one or more hot gas path components (Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “After exiting heat exchanger 46, the fuel may be directed through catalytic cracker 50 for further conditioning before entering combustion chamber 26”), whereby a hydrogen gas and a nitrogen gas are produced (cracking ammonia inherently produced hydrogen gas and a nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2); and flowing (Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50) the hydrogen gas (H2) produced by cracking the ammonia vapor to a combustor (26) of the turbomachine (10).
Callas is silent on a controller, the controller configured for: directing a flow…; cracking the ammonia; and flowing the hydrogen gas.
Ito teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, a similar turbomachine (1) having a controller (31) configured for: directing a flow of ammonia (14-44-46) to a catalytic cracker (16) where the ammonia was cracked into hydrogen gas and a nitrogen gas that flowed to a combustor (13) of the turbomachine (1). Ito teaches, in Para. [0010], “…the gas turbine system may include a controller configured to control the first flow rate control valve so that ammonia is supplied from the ammonia tank to the ammonia cracking catalyst during an operation of the gas turbine system”. Ito teaches, in Para. [0042], “The controller 31 controls the whole gas turbine system 1”. Ito teaches, in Para. [0035], “The ammonia cracking catalyst 16 cracks ammonia into hydrogen and nitrogen. Specifically, the cracked gas contains hydrogen and nitrogen”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Callas with the controller, taught by Ito, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbomachine/gas turbine including one or more hot gas path components, a combustor, a catalytic cracker for ammonia, and the controller that controls the whole turbomachine/gas turbine system, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the controller would have facilitated controlling the whole turbomachine/gas turbine system. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 11, Callas, i.v., Ito, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches comprising flowing the ammonia vapor across a catalyst (inside 50, i.e., Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “… catalytic cracker 50”), wherein [The following is the designed and intended use of an ammonia catalytic cracker.] the ammonia vapor is cracked by interaction with the catalyst and by the heat from the one or more hot gas path components.
Re Claim 12, Callas, i.v., Ito, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches including, in Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50, wherein the catalyst (inside 50) is downstream of the one or more hot gas path components (46), whereby the ammonia vapor is heated by the one or more hot gas path components (46) before flowing the ammonia vapor across the catalyst (inside 50).
Re Claim 13, Callas, i.v., Ito, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches comprising providing a flow of liquid ammonia to a cooling air system (38) of the turbomachine (10) and generating the flow of ammonia vapor from the liquid ammonia in the cooling air system (38) of the turbomachine.
Re Claim 15, Callas, i.v., Ito, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches comprising flowing the nitrogen gas produced by cracking the ammonia vapor (inside 50) to the combustor (26) of the turbomachine. As discussed in Claim 10 above and taught by Ito - Para. [0035], cracking ammonia inherently produced hydrogen gas and a nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2 and both the hydrogen gas and the nitrogen gas flowed into the combustor (26) of the turbomachine.
Re Claim 16, Callas, i.v., Ito, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches including wherein directing the flow of ammonia vapor to the one or more hot gas path components (46) of the turbomachine (10) comprises flowing the ammonia vapor through a cooling circuit (ammonia vapor flow path inside 46) within at least one of the one or more hot gas path components (46) of the turbomachine (10). Col. 5, ll. 40 – 45 disclosed that “the fuel may then be directed through heat exchanger 46 to absorb additional heat from the high temperature exhaust exiting turbine section 16”; therefore, the high temperature exhaust gases were cooled by the flow of ammonia vapor absorbing heat from said high temperature exhaust gases.
Claims 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas (8,220,268) in view of Ito et al. (2024/0011435A1) Cunha et al. (5,634,766).
Re Claim 14, Callas, i.v., Ito, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches wherein the cooling air system (38) and the combustor (26) of the turbomachine form a closed ammonia vapor circuit [As discussed in the 112(b) section above, “closed ammonia vapor circuit” is interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’ since the cracked ammonia vapor flowed out of said circuit and into the combustor where the cracked ammonia vapor burned and created combustion gases.].
Callas, i.v., Ito, as discussed above, is silent on a turbine section of the turbomachine being part of the “closed ammonia vapor circuit” [interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’]. Callas further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that the one or more hot gas path components, i.e., heat exchanger (46), could have a different location such as between the low pressure turbine (16a) and the recuperator (34).
Cunha teaches, in Figs. 1 – 26, a similar turbomachine (10) having a first stage nozzle heat exchanger (54 - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 8, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40) in a turbine section (20) of the turbomachine (10). As shown in Fig. 4 and discussed in Col. 10, ll. 15 – 35, a cooling gas flowed into inlet (82) then through a plurality of cooling channels inside the first stage nozzle before the now heated cooling gas flowed out through outlet (84).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Callas, i.v., Ito, with the first stage nozzle heat exchanger, taught by Cunha, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbomachine/gas turbine including one or more hot gas path components, a combustor, a catalytic cracker for ammonia, and a hot gas path component being a heat exchanger inside a first stage nozzle in a turbine section, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the hot gas path component being a first stage nozzle heat exchanger in a turbine section, taught by Cunha, for the hot gas path component (heat exchanger 46), taught by Callas, i.v., Ito, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ammonia vapor flowing into, through, and out of the first stage nozzle would have facilitated increasing the operational life of the first stage nozzle by cooling, i.e., absorbing heat, said first stage nozzle during operation of the turbomachine/gas turbine. Absorbing heat from the first stage nozzle would have facilitated cracking the ammonia vapor into hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2, because ammonic cracking was an endothermic process, i.e., energy usually in the form of heat was required to drive the process. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, would have had the cooling air system, a turbine section of the turbomachine (in this case the first stage nozzle), and the combustor of the turbomachine form a closed ammonia vapor circuit [interpreted as an ‘open ammonia vapor circuit’].
Re Claims 17 and 18, Callas, i.v., Ito, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 17) wherein the one or more hot gas path components of the turbomachine comprises a nozzle in a turbine section of the turbomachine and (Claim 18) wherein the nozzle is a first stage nozzle. Callas further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that the one or more hot gas path components, i.e., heat exchanger (46), could have a different location such as between the low pressure turbine (16a) and the recuperator (34).
Cunha teaches, in Figs. 1 – 26, a similar turbomachine (10) having a first stage nozzle heat exchanger (54 - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 8, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40) in a turbine section (20) of the turbomachine (10). As shown in Fig. 4 and discussed in Col. 10, ll. 15 – 35, a cooling gas flowed into inlet (82) then through a plurality of cooling channels inside the first stage nozzle before the now heated cooling gas flowed out through outlet (84).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Callas, i.v., Ito, with the first stage nozzle heat exchanger, taught by Cunha, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the turbomachine/gas turbine including one or more hot gas path components, a combustor, a catalytic cracker for ammonia, and a hot gas path component being a heat exchanger inside a first stage nozzle in a turbine section, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the hot gas path component being a first stage nozzle heat exchanger in a turbine section, taught by Cunha, for the hot gas path component (heat exchanger 46), taught by Callas, i.v., Ito, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ammonia vapor flowing into, through, and out of the first stage nozzle would have facilitated increasing the operational life of the first stage nozzle by cooling, i.e., absorbing heat, said first stage nozzle during operation of the turbomachine/gas turbine. Absorbing heat from the first stage nozzle would have facilitated cracking the ammonia vapor into hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2, because ammonic cracking was an endothermic process, i.e., energy usually in the form of heat was required to drive the process. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741