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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/27/2026 canceling Claims 8 and 17, amending Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 18, and adding new Claims 19 – 22 has been entered. Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 16, and 18 – 22 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “catalyst is positioned immediately downstream of the serpentine channel” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from New Claim 19. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second portion of the compressed air exits the cooling air system as cooled cooling air and is provided to cool parts of the … turbine section” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from New Claim 22. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 16, 18 – 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended Claim 1, ll. 8 – 9 recited “flowing the ammonia vapor across a catalyst positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle with respect to the flow of ammonia vapor” and Amended Claim 10, ll. 11 – 12 recited “flowing the ammonia vapor across a catalyst positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle with respect to the flow of ammonia vapor” were amended to overcome the combination of applied references in the Office Action mailed on 05/29/2026. New Claim 19, ll. 2 – 3 recited “wherein the catalyst is positioned immediately downstream of the serpentine channel”. Applicant’s 08/27/2026 reply cited Paragraph [0032] and Fig. 2 of the original disclosure as providing support for the above recited amendment to independent Claims 1 and 10. For New Claim 19, Applicant cited Paras. [0032], [0035], and [0045] and Figs. 2 and 3 on Pg. 8 of Applicant’s 08/27/2026 reply. A text search of the original Specification did not result in locating sufficient description to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed inventions. A text search of the original Specification only revealed a single use of the word “immediate” or “immediately” and it referred to a second set of nozzles, i.e., second stage nozzle, that would have been adjacent to and immediately downstream of the first stage nozzle. Original Specification Para. [0037] disclosed “A subsequent stage, e.g., another set of nozzles, may be adjacent to and immediately downstream of the rotor blades of the preceding stage.” Para. [0032] failed to mention the catalyst and failed to describe the catalyst is “positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle”. Therefore, the original Specification failed to explicitly describe that the catalyst is “positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle” as recited by amended independent Claims 1 and 10. Additionally, the original Specification failed to explicitly describe that the catalyst is “positioned immediately downstream of the serpentine channel” as recited by new Claim 19. Limitations of amended independent Claims 1 and 10 and new Claim 19 “immediately downstream” are exclusionary provisos because they exclude all other possible locations of the catalyst relative to the nozzle/serpentine channel. Below is an excerpt from the MPEP 2173.05(i) regarding exclusionary provisos:
“Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure … The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.”
As discussed above, there is no positive disclosure in the original Specification that the “...catalyst was positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle or the serpentine channel (located inside the nozzle)”. The phrase “catalyst 208” was only disclosed five time in the Original Specification and the five times were all in Para. [0035]. Para. [0035] failed to explicitly disclose that the “...catalyst was positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle or the serpentine channel (located inside the nozzle)”. Applicant’s Figs. 1, 3, and 4 all failed to show the catalyst (208). Applicant’s Fig. 2 failed to show the nozzle (300) or the serpentine channel (302 - located inside the nozzle 300) shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 2 is not described as being drawn to scale. Furthermore, Fig. 2 is a symbolic representation of a gas turbine system where geometric symbols are used to represent various components. In Fig. 2, oppositely facing trapezoids were used to represent a compressor (16) and turbine (28), a rectangle with sharp corners represents the catalyst (208), a large rectangle with rounded corners represents the combustor (24), and a smaller rectangle with rounded corners represents the Cooled Cooling Air (CCA) system (202).
Therefore, there was absolutely no original written description support for the amended and new claim limitations. Examiner notes that the drawings themselves are not sufficient to provide support for the above limitation, because, as stated above “A mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.” (MPEP 2173.05(i)). A positive recitation in the original specification explicitly disclosing that the “...catalyst was positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle or the serpentine channel (located inside the nozzle)" would have been needed in order to provide support for the amended independent Claims 1 and 10 limitations and the new Claim 19 limitations. Therefore, amended independent Claims 1 and 10 and new Claim 19 contains new matter, and fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2 – 7, 9, 19, 20, and 22 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 16 and 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. New Claim 21 recites “The method of Claim 21, wherein the temperature of the ammonia vapor before flowing across the catalyst is at least 6000 C.” New Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because if failed to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 7 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).
Regarding Claim 1, Callas teaches, in the sole figure, the invention as claimed, 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); flowing the ammonia vapor across a catalyst (inside 50, i.e., Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “… catalytic cracker 50”) positioned immediately downstream of the one or more hot gas path components (46, as shown in the sole figure ‘50’ was immediately downstream of ‘46’) with respect to the flow of ammonia vapor, and flowing (Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50) the hydrogen gas (H2) produced by cracking the ammonia vapor to the combustor (26) of the turbomachine (10).
Callas is silent on said one or more hot gas path components being located in a turbine section of said turbomachine, wherein the one or more hot gas path components includes a nozzle in the turbine section. 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 one or more hot gas path components, in this case a plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers (54 - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 8, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40), located 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 one or more hot gas path components being located in a turbine section of said turbomachine, wherein the one or more hot gas path components includes a nozzle in the turbine section, 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 the 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 from, 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 in the combination of Callas, i.v., Cunha, said catalyst would have been positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle with respect to the flow of ammonia vapor because heated ammonia vapor would have flowed out of said one or more hot gas path components, e.g., plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers, located in said turbine section, through an ammonia line (52 – Callas sole figure) to the catalyst (inside 50, i.e., Callas Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “… catalytic cracker 50”) where the heated ammonia vapor would have been cracked into hydrogen gas that flowed out of the catalytic cracker (50) and into said combustor (26) of said turbomachine (10).
Re Claim 2, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including 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, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the ammonia vapor is heated by the one or more hot gas path components in said turbine section before flowing the ammonia vapor across the catalyst, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 4, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches, in sole figure, 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 5, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, wherein the cooling air system (38 - Callas), the turbine section, i.e., plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers, of the turbomachine (10 - Callas), and the combustor (26 - Callas) of the turbomachine form an ammonia vapor circuit, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 6, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches, in sole figure, 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, i.v., Cunha, teaches 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 (i.e., plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers) of the turbomachine (10) comprises flowing the ammonia vapor through a cooling circuit (ammonia vapor flow path inside the plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers) within at least one of the one or more hot gas path components of the turbomachine (10). As discussed in Claim 1 above, Cunha taught, 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).
Re Claim 9, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the nozzle is a first stage nozzle (Cunha - Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40), refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Claims 10 – 16 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) in view of Cunha et al. (5,634,766).
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); flowing the ammonia vapor across a catalyst (inside 50, i.e., Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “… catalytic cracker 50”) positioned immediately downstream of the one or more hot gas path components (46, as shown in the sole figure ‘50’ was immediately downstream of ‘46’) with respect to the flow of ammonia vapor, 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).
Callas, i.v., Ito, is silent on said one or more hot gas path components being located in a turbine section, wherein the one or more hot gas path components includes a nozzle in the turbine section. 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 one or more hot gas path components, in this case a plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers (54 - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60, Col. 8, ll. 5 – 10, and Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40), located 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 one or more hot gas path components being located in a turbine section, wherein the one or more hot gas path components includes a nozzle in the turbine section, 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 the 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 from, 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 in the combination of Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, said catalyst would have been positioned immediately downstream of the nozzle with respect to the flow of ammonia vapor because heated ammonia vapor would have flowed out of said one or more hot gas path components, e.g., plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers, located in said turbine section, through an ammonia line (52 – Callas sole figure) to the catalyst (inside 50, i.e., Callas Col. 5, ll. 45 – 50 “… catalytic cracker 50”) where the heated ammonia vapor would have been cracked into hydrogen gas that flowed out of the catalytic cracker (50) and into said combustor (26) of said turbomachine (10).
Re Claim 11, Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including 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 and Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the ammonia vapor is heated by the one or more hot gas path components in said turbine section before flowing the ammonia vapor across the catalyst, refer to the Claim 10 rejection above.
Re Claim 13, Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches, in sole figure, further comprising a cooling air system (38) of the turbomachine (10) for providing a flow of liquid ammonia (Col. 5, ll. 10 - 20) to the cooling air system (38) of the turbomachine and generating the flow of ammonia vapor (42) from the liquid ammonia in the cooling air system (38) of the turbomachine
Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, as discussed above, is silent on said controller is further configured for said providing a flow of liquid ammonia to the cooling air system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the controller of Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, could have been configured for said providing a flow of liquid ammonia to the cooling air system 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 which would have included providing a flow of liquid ammonia to the cooling air system, e.g., opening a valve to allow liquid ammonia to flow into and through said cooling air system. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 14, Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, wherein the cooling air system (38 - Callas), the turbine section, i.e., plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers, of the turbomachine (10 - Callas), and the combustor (26 - Callas) of the turbomachine form an ammonia vapor circuit, refer to the Claim 10 rejection above.
Re Claim 15, Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Callas further teaches, in sole figure, 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 10 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the controller of Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, would have been further configured for flowing the nitrogen gas produced by cracking the ammonia vapor to the combustor of the turbomachine for the reason discussed above.
Re Claim 16, Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, teaches 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 (i.e., plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers) of the turbomachine (10) comprises flowing the ammonia vapor through a cooling circuit (ammonia vapor flow path inside the plurality of first stage nozzle heat exchangers) within at least one of the one or more hot gas path components of the turbomachine (10). As discussed in Claim 10 above, Cunha taught, 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).
Re Claim 18, Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the nozzle is a first stage nozzle (Cunha - Col. 9, ll. 30 – 40), refer to the Claim 10 rejection above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas (8,220,268) in view of Cunha et al. (5,634,766) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Hagan et al. (10,240,470).
Re Claim 19, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the cooling circuit is a serpentine channel within the nozzle, and wherein the catalyst is positioned immediately downstream of the serpentine channel.
Hagan teaches, in Figs. 1 – 9 and Col. 5, l. 40 to Col. 6, l. 40, a cooling circuit is a serpentine channel (118) within the nozzle (60, 70).
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., Cunha, with the cooling circuit is a serpentine channel within the nozzle, taught by Hagan, 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, the cooling circuit within at least one of the one or more hot gas path components of the turbomachine includes a nozzle in the turbine section, and the cooling circuit is a serpentine channel within the nozzle, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the cooling circuit is a serpentine channel within the nozzle arrangement, taught by Hagan, for the cooling circuit within the nozzle arrangement of Callas, i.v., Cunha, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the cooling circuit being a serpentine channel within the nozzle would have facilitated increased heat transfer since the serpentine flow path inside the nozzle would have meant that the ammonia would have spent more time in contact with the interior walls of said nozzle compared to a straight flow path radially through said nozzle from the top to the bottom or vice versa. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas (8,220,268) in view of Cunha et al. (5,634,766) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Miyagawa et al. (8,904,765).
Re Claim 20, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the catalyst comprises one of nickel, iron, ruthenium, or cobalt.
Miyagawa teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 35 – 60, nickel, iron, ruthenium, or cobalt metal catalysts for cracking ammonia.
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., Cunha, with the catalyst comprises one of nickel, iron, ruthenium, or cobalt, taught by Miyagawa, 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 catalyst comprises one of nickel, iron, ruthenium, or cobalt, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the catalyst comprises one of nickel, iron, ruthenium, or cobalt, taught by Miyagawa, for the non-disclosed catalyst material of Callas, i.v., Cunha, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the nickel, iron, ruthenium, or cobalt metal catalysts would have facilitated cracking ammonia into hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas per the chemical equation 2 NH3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] N2 + 3 H2. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas (8,220,268) in view of Cunha et al. (5,634,766) as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Sasi et al., “Ammonia for civil aviation: A design and performance study for aircraft and turbofan engine”, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 307, April 6, 2024, hereinafter “Sasi”.
Re Claim 22, Callas, i.v., Cunha, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Callas further teaches, in the sole figure and Col. 3, ll. 20 - 35, wherein a first portion (24) of compressed air from a compressor (12) of the turbomachine (10) is provided to the combustor (14, 26).
Callas, i.v., Cunha, as discussed above, is silent on wherein a second portion of the compressed air from the compressor is provided to the cooling air system, and wherein the second portion of the compressed air exits the cooling air system as cooled cooling air and is provided to cool parts of the combustor or turbine section.
Sasi teaches, in Fig. 11 and under section “3.2.4 Bleed air heating”, a similar turbomachine wherein a first portion (line from HPC to C) of compressed air from a compressor (HPC) of the turbomachine (Fig. 11) is provided to the combustor (oval with C), wherein a second portion (labeled ‘bleed air’) of the compressed air from the compressor (HPC) is provided to the cooling air system (HEX), and wherein the second portion (labeled ‘bleed air’) of the compressed air exits the cooling air system (HEX) as cooled cooling air (labeled) and is provided to cool parts of the combustor or turbine section (“…to cool the HPT NGV blades”, Pg. 7, second column, last paragraph).
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., Cunha, with the second portion of the compressed air from the compressor is provided to the cooling air system, and wherein the second portion of the compressed air exits the cooling air system as cooled cooling air and is provided to cool parts of the combustor or turbine section, taught by Sasi, 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 providing the first portion of compressed air from a compressor of the turbomachine to the combustor while second portion of the compressed air from the compressor is provided to the cooling air system, and wherein the second portion of the compressed air exits the cooling air system as cooled cooling air and is provided to cool parts of the combustor or turbine section arrangement, 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., modifying the compressor and cooling air system arrangement to have a second portion of the compressed air exit the cooling air system as cooled cooling air which would have been provided to cool parts of the turbine section to facilitate more effective cooling of the turbine section because the cooled cooling air would have been colder, i.e., lower temperature, than the second portion of the compressed air bled from the compressor. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on Pg. 6, second to last paragraph continuing on to Pg. 7 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant further argues that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine these references because they disclose fundamentally different and incompatible system architectures.” It has been held that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); MPEP 2145. Applicant failed to cite any factual evidence in the record to support Applicant’s allegations that the system architectures of Callas and Cunha were incompatible. Applicant failed to cite any factual evidence in the record to establish that it would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill of a person in the gas turbine art to substitute Cunha’s gas cooled first stage turbine nozzle, i.e., a heat exchanger, for the heat exchanger of Callas where ammonia gas cooled the heat exchanger by absorbing heat from the gas turbine exhaust gas which was combustion gas that had been expanded through at least one turbine. In KSR, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” 550 U.S. 398 (2007) at 415-16. Applicant’s original disclosure failed to describe any unexpected results. Tsujikado et al. (5,477,672) was evidence that it was within the level of ordinary skill of a person in the gas turbine art to use a first stage turbine nozzle (3) to catalytically crack, i.e., decompose, a liquid (in this case Hydrogen Peroxide – H2O2) from tank (7) into a gas containing oxygen (O2) and steam (H2O) that was injected into a combustion chamber (1) where said gas mixed with a fuel (F) and was combusted to generate a high-temperature and high-pressure combustion gas (G) that flowed around said first stage turbine nozzle (3) and provided the heat energy to the liquid flowing through the said first stage turbine nozzle (3). Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s allegations, the proposed combination of Callas, i.v., Cunha, was NOT beyond the level of ordinary skill of a person in the gas turbine art.
Applicant further argues on Pg. 7, first paragraph that “A person of ordinary skill would recognize that introducing a combustible fuel into passages designed for inert steam introduces significant challenges that neither reference contemplates.” It has been held that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); MPEP 2145. Applicant failed to cite any factual evidence in the record to support Applicant’s allegations that it would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill of a person in the gas turbine art to substitute Cunha’s gas cooled first stage turbine nozzle, i.e., a heat exchanger, for the heat exchanger of Callas where ammonia gas cooled the heat exchanger by absorbing heat from the gas turbine exhaust gas which was combustion gas that had been expanded through at least one turbine. Ammonia has been used for over 100 years as a coolant, so safely handling ammonia and designing heat exchange systems for ammonia was well within the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument ignores the scientific fact that it would have been impossible for ammonia to combust inside the turbine nozzle because there was no oxygen inside the turbine nozzle passages to support combustion. A combustible fuel without sufficient amounts of oxygen to support combustion is just an inert fluid inside a sealed passage or container. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7, second and third paragraphs that “Applicant respectfully submits that none of the currently cited references, alone or in any combination, disclose the above-quoted features of independent claims 1 and 10” because “Instead, as shown in FIG. 2 of Callas, the catalyst cracker 50 is disposed upstream of the turbine section 16 with respect to the flow of ammonia vapor”. In response to applicant's arguments against reference Callas individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, the combination of Callas, i.v., Cunha, was applied to reject independent Claim 1 while the combination of Callas, i.v., Ito and Cunha, was applied to reject independent Claim 10. The rejections are maintained.
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
Prosecution Insights