DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 19341898 filed 9/26/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 & 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uskert 20120167574 in view of Winkler 20230160343.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Uskert teaches a combustor (Fig. 2) for a turbomachine engine (Fig. 1), the combustor comprising:
a combustion chamber (78) that combusts a fuel and air mixture, which generates combustion dynamics (inherent to operation of 78); and
a component (66) in operable flow with the combustion chamber and having a porous structure (Fig. 4, 94/96) that defines a plurality of channels (96), wherein the plurality of channels causes the component to act as a damper to reduce the combustion dynamics of the combustor (para. [0023]).
Uskert teaches the porous structure is a honeycomb (honeycomb 92; para. [0021]).
Uskert fails to teach the porous structure is a gyroid or a triply periodic minimal surface.
Winkler teaches unit cell resonator networks for gas turbine combustor tone damping (see Title and Figs. 19A-20B) wherein cells 202/302 of the resonator networks are formed as a Schwarz P surface, known to one of ordinary skill in the art as being a triply periodic minimal surface (para. [0041]), the unit cells 202/302 defining a porous structure with a plurality of channels (see Figs. 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert’s combustor to replace the honeycomb damper in the liner with the triply periodic minimal surface unit cell networks, as taught by Winkler, in order to provide greater damping/attenuation per unit volume as compared with honeycomb liners (Winkler; para. [0072]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert further teaches the component is one of a ferrule, a cowl, a dome, a swirler, or a liner (liner 66).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert in view of Winkler teaches, as discussed for claim 1 above, the component is a first component (outer liner 66), the plurality of channels is a first plurality of channels (first plurality of channels defined by unit cells 202/302 from Winkler) and the damper is a first damper (the unit cells 202/302 discussed above form a first damper), and the combustor further comprises a second component (inner liner 68) in operable flow with the combustion chamber, the second component being one of a ferrule, a cowl, a dome, or a liner (inner liner 68) and having a second porous structure (Fig. 4, 94/96), that defines a second plurality of channels (96), and the second plurality of channels are adapted as a second damper to reduce combustion dynamics of the combustor (para. [0023]).
As discussed for claim 1 above, Uskert teaches the second porous structure being a honeycomb and thus fails to teach the second porous structure being a triply periodic minimal surface.
Winkler teaches unit cell resonator networks for gas turbine combustor tone damping (see Title and Figs. 19A-20B) wherein cells 202/302 of the resonator networks are formed as a Schwarz P surface, known to one of ordinary skill in the art as being a triply periodic minimal surface (para. [0041]), the unit cells 202/302 defining a porous structure with a plurality of channels (see Figs. 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert’s combustor to replace the honeycomb damper in the second component with the triply periodic minimal surface unit cell networks, as taught by Winkler, in order to provide greater damping/attenuation per unit volume as compared with honeycomb liners (Winkler; para. [0072]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the plurality of channels is characterized by a cross section being one of a circular (see Fig. 3A, circular cross sections for channels), oval, square, rectangular, hexagonal, triangular, or gyroid cross section.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert further teaches the combustion dynamics comprise at least one of mechanical vibrations, thermoacoustic instabilities, or hydrodynamic instabilities (see para. [0017]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert further teaches the damper reduces combustion dynamics of the combustor by at least one of increasing viscous dissipation or increasing heat dissipation (this is a result of operation of the apparatus – given that Uskert in view of Winkler teaches identical structure as the recited apparatus, Uskert in view of Winkler is capable of the same, notably viscous dissipation and heat dissipation will inherently occur in any porous damper).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert in view of Winkler teaches a first channel of the plurality of channels has a first length that is equal to a quarter wavelength of a first frequency of combustion dynamics (the first frequency of combustion dynamics is not recited – a frequency can be defined, which could be present in combustion dynamics, such that the length of one of the channels of unit cells 202/302 is equal to a quarter wavelength of the frequency), and wherein a second channel of the plurality of channels has a second length that is equal to a quarter wavelength of a second frequency of the combustion dynamics (the second frequency of combustion dynamics is not recited and the unit cells 202/302 can be configured to attenuate different frequencies by, for example, completely sealing some of the channels – thus Uskert in view of Winkler is found capable of operating in the claimed manner with a second frequency; Winkler, para. [0046]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the plurality of channels is characterized by a shape being one of a linear shape (channels can be said to have a liner shape inasmuch as a linear pathway can be traced among the unit cells 202/302), a curved shape, or a serpentine shape.
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the porous structure is made of a material (Uskert teaches metal; para. [0019]), and a first channel of the plurality of channels has a first width that is at most four times a thermal penetration depth of the material at a first frequency of combustion dynamics (a frequency can be defined, which can occur during combustion dynamics, which will correspond with a thermal penetration depth of the material such that a first channel in unit cells 202/302 has a width – interpreted as the thickness of the liner wall 304 in Winkler, corresponding to 74 in Uskert, defining an opening to the unit cells 202/302 as the first channel – which is at most four times the thermal penetration depth), and wherein a second channel of the plurality of channels has a second width that is at most four times a thermal penetration depth of the material at a second frequency of combustion dynamics (a second frequency can be defined, which is just marginally greater or less than the first frequency, which can occur during combustion dynamics, which will correspond with a thermal penetration depth of the material such that a second channel in unit cells 202/302 has a width – interpreted as the thickness of the liner wall 304 in Winkler, corresponding to 74 in Uskert, defining an opening to the unit cells 202/302 as the second channel – which is at most four times the thermal penetration depth).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 10, but Uskert in view of Winkler fails to teach the first frequency is two hundred Hertz, the first width is forty mils, the second frequency is one thousand Hertz, and the second width is eighteen mils.
Uskert does teach modifying parameters of the cells and openings 96 to dampen multiple frequencies of combustion instabilities (Uskert; para. [0023]) while Winkler also teaches dampening different frequencies (Winkler; para. [0043]).
The width of the channels (i.e. the length of 96 along 74 in Uskert, or the length of openings in 304 to the unit cells 202/302 in Winkler) is thus found to be a result-effective variable which achieves the art-recognized result of achieving the damping of various frequencies of combustion instabilities. The presence of a known result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variable as a matter of routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert in view of Winkler’s combustor such that the first frequency is two hundred Hertz, the first width is forty mils, the second frequency is one thousand Hertz, and the second width is eighteen mils, as a matter of routine optimization to determine the appropriate parameters, in particular the length of channels along the thickness of the liner (74 in Uskert, 304 in Winkler), to dampen desired frequencies of combustion instabilities. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 10, and Uskert further teaches the material is one of a metal alloy or a ceramic matrix composite (para. [0019]).
Claims 5 & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uskert in view of Winkler, as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Carrotte GB2515028 (copy provided with non-final Office action mailed 10/13/2023 in parent application 18314418).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Uskert in view of Winkler fails to expressly teach the porous structure has a porosity between thirty percent and eighty percent, inclusive.
Carrotte teaches a combustor (Fig. 2) with a porous structure (42) having a plurality of openings (110, 112), wherein the total area of the apertures is selected to provide sufficient cooling for the liner while providing acoustic damping of combustion instabilities (p. 12, 1st full paragraph).
Thus the porosity, taught by Carrotte as the total area of the apertures, is found to be a result-effective variable which achieves the art-recognized result of balancing liner cooling with the damping of combustion instabilities. The presence of a known result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variable as a matter of routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert in view of Winkler’s combustor such that the porous structure has a porosity between thirty percent and eighty percent, inclusive, as a matter of routine optimization to determine the necessary porosity to both provide sufficient liner cooling and provide sufficient damping. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert and Winkler teach dampening a plurality of frequencies (Uskert, para. [0023]; Winkler, para. [0043]), thus Uskert in view of Winkler is found capable of operating to dampen combustion dynamics for a plurality of frequencies between one hundred eighty Hertz to two thousand Hertz, inclusive, given the fact that Uskert and Winkler are both directed to dampening multiple frequencies in similar combustors to each other and to the claimed invention and because the acoustic energy of the combustion dynamics at the plurality of frequencies within the claimed range will inherently be dissipated to some extent by the unit cells 202/302 of Uskert in view of Winkler.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Uskert in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Uskert in view of Winkler teaches a first portion of the porous structure is adapted to dampen a first frequency of the combustion dynamics, and a second portion of the porous structure is adapted to dampen a second frequency of the combustion dynamics (unit cells 202/302 are configured to dampen multiple frequencies and thus a first portion of the unit cells 202/302 will dampen a first frequency and a second portion of the unit cells 202/302 will dampen a second frequency; Winkler, para. [0043]).
Claims 1-10, & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrotte in view of Winkler.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Carrotte teaches a combustor (Fig. 2) for a turbomachine engine (Fig. 1), the combustor comprising:
a combustion chamber (volume defined between 40/42 in Fig. 2) that combusts a fuel and air mixture, which generates combustion dynamics (inherent to operation of combustor); and
a component (42) in operable flow with the combustion chamber and having a porous structure (42 has a porous structure) that defines a plurality of channels (110/112), wherein the plurality of channels causes the component to act as a damper in order to reduce the combustion dynamics of the combustor (p. 12, 1st full paragraph).
Carrotte teaches the porous structure defines a honeycomb (p. 12 4th full paragraph).
Carrotte fails to teach the porous structure being a gyroid or a triply periodic minimal surface.
Winkler teaches unit cell resonator networks for gas turbine combustor tone damping (see Title and Figs. 19A-20B) wherein cells 202/302 of the resonator networks are formed as a Schwarz P surface, known to one of ordinary skill in the art as being a triply periodic minimal surface (para. [0041]), the unit cells 202/302 defining a porous structure with a plurality of channels (see Figs. 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrotte’s combustor to replace the honeycomb damper in the liner with the triply periodic minimal surface unit cell networks, as taught by Winkler, in order to provide greater damping/attenuation per unit volume as compared with honeycomb liners (Winkler; para. [0072]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte further teaches the component is one of a ferrule, a cowl, a dome, a swirler, or a liner (outer liner 42).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte further teaches the component is a first component (42 is first component), the plurality of channels is a first plurality of channels and the damper is a first damper (first plurality of channels 110/112 is a first plurality operating as a first damper), and the combustor further comprises a second component (40) in operable flow with the combustion chamber, the second component being one of a ferrule, a cowl, a dome, or a liner (outer liner 40), and having a second porous structure (40 has a porous structure) that defines a second plurality of channels (110/112), and the second plurality of channels are adapted as a second damper to reduce combustion dynamics of the combustor (p. 12, 1st full paragraph).
As discussed for claim 1 above, Carrotte teaches the second porous structure being a honeycomb and thus fails to teach the second porous structure being a triply periodic minimal surface.
Winkler teaches unit cell resonator networks for gas turbine combustor tone damping (see Title and Figs. 19A-20B) wherein cells 202/302 of the resonator networks are formed as a Schwarz P surface, known to one of ordinary skill in the art as being a triply periodic minimal surface (para. [0041]), the unit cells 202/302 defining a porous structure with a plurality of channels (see Figs. 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrotte in view of Winkler’s combustor to replace the honeycomb damper in the second component with the triply periodic minimal surface unit cell networks, as taught by Winkler, in order to provide greater damping/attenuation per unit volume as compared with honeycomb liners (Winkler; para. [0072]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the plurality of channels is characterized by a cross section being one of a circular (see Fig. 3A, circular cross sections for channels), oval, square, rectangular, hexagonal, triangular, or gyroid cross section.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte further teaches the total area of the apertures is selected to provide sufficient cooling for the liner while providing acoustic damping of combustion instabilities (p. 12, 1st full paragraph).
Thus the porosity, taught by Carrotte as the total area of the apertures, is found to be a result-effective variable which achieves the art-recognized result of balancing liner cooling with the damping of combustion instabilities. The presence of a known result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variable as a matter of routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrotte’s combustor such that the porous structure has a porosity between thirty percent and eighty percent, inclusive, as a matter of routine optimization to determine the necessary porosity to both provide sufficient liner cooling and provide sufficient damping. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte further teaches the combustion dynamics comprise at least one of mechanical vibrations, thermoacoustic instabilities, or hydrodynamic instabilities (the combustor will experience combustion instabilities and will include each of these types of dynamics inherently, as mechanical vibrations occur during operation, thermoacoustic instabilities occur due to unsteady heat release, and hydrodynamic instabilities will occur due to turbulence within the fuel and air mixture in the combustion chamber).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte further teaches the damper reduces combustion dynamics of the combustor by at least one of increasing viscous dissipation or increasing heat dissipation (this is a result of operation of the apparatus – given that Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches identical structure as the recited apparatus, Carrotte in view of Winkler is capable of the same, notably viscous dissipation and heat dissipation will inherently occur in any porous damper).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte further teaches a first channel of the plurality of channels has a first length that is equal to a quarter wavelength of a first frequency of combustion dynamics (the frequencies are not recited, and a frequency can be defined which can occur during combustion dynamics such that the length of a first one of 110 or 112, corresponding to the openings in 304 of Winkler, is equal to a quarter wavelength of the frequency), and wherein a second channel of the plurality of channels has a second length that is equal to a quarter wavelength of a second frequency of combustion dynamics (manufacturing tolerances will ensure that not every opening 110/112 has exactly the same length, and thus the openings 110/112 will inherently correspond with slightly different quarter wavelengths of frequencies even if the thickness or orientation of 110/112 are not intentionally modified to adjust the lengths of the holes 110/112,).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the plurality of channels is characterized by a shape being one of a linear shape (center axis of 110/112, corresponding to openings in 304 for unit cells 202/302 in Winkler, does not change directions along the length of 110/112), a curved shape, and a serpentine shape.
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the porous structure is made of a material (p. 12, l. 15), and a first channel of the plurality of channels has a first width that is at most four times a thermal penetration depth of the material at a first frequency of combustion dynamics (a frequency can be defined, which can occur during combustion dynamics, which will correspond with a thermal penetration depth of the material such that a first channel 110/112, corresponding with the openings in 304 to unit cells 202/302 in Winkler, has a width which is at most four times the thermal penetration depth), and wherein a second channel of the plurality of channels has a second width that is at most four times a thermal penetration depth of the material at a second frequency of combustion dynamics (a second frequency can be defined, which is just marginally greater or less than the first frequency, which can occur during combustion dynamics, which will correspond with a thermal penetration depth of the material such that a second channel 110/112, corresponding with openings 304 to unit cells 202/302 in Winkler, has a width which is at most four times the thermal penetration depth).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and and Carrotte further teaches the material is one of a metal alloy (p. 12, l. 15) or a ceramic matrix composite.
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Carrotte further teaches the component is adapted to dampen combustion dynamics for a plurality of frequencies between one hundred eighty Hertz to two thousand Hertz, inclusive (p. 7, last paragraph through p. 8, also see p. 1, last two paragraphs through p. 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Carrotte in view of Winkler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Carrotte further teaches a first portion of the porous structure is adapted to dampen a first frequency of combustion dynamics (portion of apertures with greater diameters will dampen some frequencies better than others; p. 9), and a second portion of the porous structure is adapted to dampen a second frequency of combustion dynamics (portion of apertures with smaller diameters will dampen other frequencies better than those dampened by the larger-diameter apertures; pp. 14-15).
Claims 15-17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uskert in view of Winkler and further in view of Pidcock 20150330635.
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Uskert teaches a combustor (Fig. 2) for a turbomachine engine (Fig. 1), the combustor having an axial direction therethrough (Fig. 2) and comprising:
a combustion chamber (78) that combusts a fuel and air mixture, which generates combustion dynamics;
a diffuser (34) through which compressed air flows into the combustor; and
a combustor component (66) positioned axially aft of the diffuser to receive a flow of cooling air therefrom (66 aft of 34 and receives air from 34 which can cool it), the flow of cooling air having turbulence and a backflow margin (turbulence and backflow margin inherently defined by flows during operation of identical structure of diffuser and combustor component claimed),
wherein the combustor component has a porous structure (Fig. 4, 94/96) that defines a plurality of channels (96), and the plurality of channels causes the combustor component to act as a damper in order to reduce the combustion dynamics of the combustor (para. [0023]).
Uskert teaches the porous structure is a honeycomb (honeycomb 92; para. [0021]) and thus fails to teach the porous structure being a gyroid or a triply periodic minimal surface.
Winkler teaches unit cell resonator networks for gas turbine combustor tone damping (see Title and Figs. 19A-20B) wherein cells 202/302 of the resonator networks are formed as a Schwarz P surface, known to one of ordinary skill in the art as being a triply periodic minimal surface (para. [0041]), the unit cells 202/302 defining a porous structure with a plurality of channels (see Figs. 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert’s combustor to replace the honeycomb damper in the liner with the triply periodic minimal surface unit cell networks, as taught by Winkler, in order to provide greater damping/attenuation per unit volume as compared with honeycomb liners (Winkler; para. [0072]).
Uskert in view of Winkler fails to teach a support structure being in operable flow with the diffuser and the combustor component and positioned therebetween.
Pidcock teaches a combustor (Fig. 2) with a diffuser (at 36A with diffuser airflow D), a combustor component (liner 42), and a support structure (76) being in operable flow with the diffuser and a combustor component and positioned therebetween (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert in view of Winkler’s combustor to include a support structure being in operable flow with the diffuser and the combustor component and positioned therebetween, as taught by Pidcock, in order to mount the combustor to a casing (Pidcock; para. [0052]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 15, and Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the support structure is one of a mounting arm (mounting arm 76) and a radial support arm.
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 15, and Uskert further teaches the combustor component is one of a swirler, a ferrule, an inner liner, and an outer liner (outer liner 66).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 15, and Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the damper reduces combustion dynamics of the combustor by at least one of increasing viscous dissipation or increasing heat dissipation (this is a result of operation of the apparatus – given that Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches identical structure as the recited apparatus, Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock is capable of the same, notably viscous dissipation and heat dissipation will inherently occur in any porous damper).
Claims 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Carrotte.
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 15, but Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock fails to teach at least a portion of the porous structure has a porosity between thirty percent and eighty percent, inclusive.
Carrotte teaches a combustor (Fig. 2) with a porous structure (42) having a plurality of openings (110, 112), wherein the total area of the apertures is selected to provide sufficient cooling for the liner while providing acoustic damping of combustion instabilities (p. 12, 1st full paragraph).
Thus the porosity, taught by Carrotte as the total area of the apertures, is found to be a result-effective variable which achieves the art-recognized result of balancing liner cooling with the damping of combustion instabilities. The presence of a known result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variable as a matter of routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock’s combustor such that at least a portion of the porous structure has a porosity between thirty percent and eighty percent, inclusive, as a matter of routine optimization to determine the necessary porosity to both provide sufficient liner cooling and provide sufficient damping. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 15, and and Uskert in view of Winkler further in view of Pidcock teaches the porous structure is made of a material (Uskert teaches metal; para. [0019]), and a first channel of the plurality of channels has a first width that is at most four times a thermal penetration depth of the material at a first frequency of the combustion dynamics (a frequency can be defined, which can occur during combustion dynamics, which will correspond with a thermal penetration depth of the material such that a first channel in unit cells 202/302 has a width – interpreted as the thickness of the liner wall 304 in Winkler, corresponding to 74 in Uskert, defining an opening to the unit cells 202/302 as the first channel – which is at most four times the thermal penetration depth), and a second channel of the plurality of channels has a second width that is at most four times a thermal penetration depth of the material at a second frequency of the combustion dynamics (a second frequency can be defined, which is just marginally greater or less than the first frequency, which can occur during combustion dynamics, which will correspond with a thermal penetration depth of the material such that a second channel in unit cells 202/302 has a width – interpreted as the thickness of the liner wall 304 in Winkler, corresponding to 74 in Uskert, defining an opening to the unit cells 202/302 as the second channel – which is at most four times the thermal penetration depth).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Ehud Gartenberg can be reached on (571) 272-4828. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights