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 .
This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 08/29/2025. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and being examined.
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 11-21 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly" in lines 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the gaseous hydrogen fuel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the gaseous hydrogen fuel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the gaseous hydrogen fuel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the gaseous hydrogen fuel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12, 13, 16, 17 depend from Claim 11 and are rejected accordingly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,410,746. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the referencing US Patent fully encompass the subject matter of the instant application claims and therefore anticipate the claims of the instant application. Since the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the referencing US Patent, the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the referencing US Patent.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 6722491) in view of Toqan et al. (US 2022/0333783).
In regards to Independent Claims 1 and 11, and with particular reference to Figures 1, 2, 3 and 8, Okada discloses a method of operating a gas turbine engine GT having a compressor section 1, a combustion section 3 including a combustion chamber 21, and a turbine section 5 in a serial flow arrangement, the method comprising:
providing gaseous hydrogen fuel H to a gaseous fuel nozzle assembly 13 fluidly coupled with the combustion chamber 21;
providing steam W to the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly 13;
Okada is silent about controlling a flame speed of a flame in the combustion chamber by providing the steam from the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly to the combustion chamber.
Toqan teaches that adding steam to hydrogen can reduce the flame speeds by a factor of 4 to 5 times (par. 51). In other words, Toqan teaches that adding steam to hydrogen controls/limits a flame speed in the combustion chamber.
Thus, since Okada already teaches adding steam W to hydrogen H (refer to figure 3 in Okada). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conclude that the system in Okada does control/limit a flame speed in the combustion chamber because as taught by Toqan, controlling the addition of steam to hydrogen has the effect of controlling/reducing/limiting a flame speed (par. 51 in Toqan).
Regarding dependent Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Toqan further teaches wherein the controlling the flame speed includes limiting the flame speed to a maximum speed of 3 meters per second o 6 meters per second (compare figures 7A and 9A in Toqan teaching that by adding steam the flame speed can be reduced to a maximum speed of 3 meter per second or 6 meters per second depending on the equivalence ratio).
Regarding dependent Claims 4 and 15, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Okada further teaches (refer particularly to figures 2 and 3) wherein providing the steam W from the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly to the combustion chamber 21 includes emitting the steam W into a first outer fluid passage 87 of the fuel nozzle assembly to mix the steam W with air A prior to mixing with the gaseous hydrogen fuel H (H discharge via orifices 75).
Regarding dependent Claims 5 and 16, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Okada further teaches further emitting steam W into a first outer fluid passage 57 by one or more steam conduit outlets 61, refer to figures 3 and 4.
Regarding dependent Claims 6 and 17, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Okada further teaches wherein the one or more steam conduct outlets 61 are disposed in a swirler 87 (the steam is discharged into the swirler, the exiting via the outlets of the swirler).
Regarding dependent Claims 7 and 18, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Okada further teaches wherein the gaseous hydrogen fuel is 100% hydrogen gas (refer to the section labeled “technical field” indicating the fuel is hydrogen gas; no indication that the hydrogen gas is a blend or mixture implying 100% hydrogen gas).
Regarding dependent Claims 9 and 20, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Okada as modified by Toqan teaches that the steam injection is to control/shape the flame with steam from the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly (refer to the rejection of claim 1). Notice that the claim does not recite any additional structural elements that shape the flame but merely indicates that the steam injection shapes the flame. The prior art of Okada-Toqan being the same as explained in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is expected to do the same, that is, shape the flame as the steam is injected into the combustion chamber).
Regarding dependent Claims 10 and 21, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Okada as modified by Toqan further teaches limiting radial spread of the flame by providing the steam from the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly around the gaseous hydrogen fuel from the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly. Notice that the claim does not recite any additional structural elements that perform the claimed function of limiting radial spread of the flame, implying that steam injection alone accomplishes this. The prior art of Okada-Toqan being the same as explained in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is expected to perform the same claimed function of limiting radial spread of the flame).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Okada in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Okada further teaches wherein the steam W from the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly 13 is provided to the combustion chamber 21.
Claims 1, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi et al. (WO 2016/056579) in view of Toqan et al. (US 2022/0333783).
In regards to Independent Claims 1 and 11, and with particular reference to Figures 1 and 5, Horiuchi discloses a method of operating a gas turbine engine 10 having a compressor section 11, a combustion section 14 including a combustion chamber 32, and a turbine section 17 in a serial flow arrangement, the method comprising:
providing gaseous hydrogen fuel 52 to a gaseous fuel nozzle assembly 71 fluidly coupled with the combustion chamber 32;
providing steam 75 to the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly 71;
Horiuchi is silent about controlling a flame speed of a flame in the combustion chamber by providing the steam from the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly to the combustion chamber.
Toqan teaches that adding steam to hydrogen can reduce the flame speeds by a factor of 4 to 5 times (par. 51). In other words, Toqan teaches that adding steam to hydrogen controls/limits a flame speed in the combustion chamber.
Thus, since Horiuchi already teaches adding steam W to hydrogen H (refer to figure 3 in Okada). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conclude that the system in Horiuchi does control/limit a flame speed in the combustion chamber because as taught by Toqan, controlling the addition of steam to hydrogen has the effect of controlling/reducing/limiting a flame speed (par. 51 in Toqan).
Regarding dependent Claims 8 and 19, Horiuchi in view of Toqan teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Horiuchi further teaches mixing the steam 75 and the gaseous hydrogen fuel 65 in a mixing chamber (section with these two fluids mix) fluidly coupled to an inlet (any inlet in the fuel nozzle assembly 71; the mixing section is fluidly coupled to any inlet shown in the fuel nozzle assembly 71) of the gaseous fuel nozzle assembly.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following reference(s) are also relevant.
Kramer et al. (US 12,038,177). Particularly refer to figure 11 for claims 1, 4, 11, 15.
Newburry et al. (US 5,983,622). Particularly refer to figure 3 for claims 1, 8, 11, 19.
Cheng et al. (US 6,418,724). Particularly refer to figure 9 for claims 1, 8, 11, 19.
Okada et al. (US DE 112014004695). Particularly refer to figure 3 for claims 1, 8, 11, 19.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
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, 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.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741