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 .
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07 October 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 15 in Fig 2A
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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl.1:
“a first component” is believed to be in error for --a first component of the two components--
“a second component” is believed to be in error for --a second component of the two components--
Cl.7: “the fuel outlet” is believed to be in error for --the pilot fuel outlet--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 5-7, and 12-15, the recitation(s) “in particular”, “preferably”, and "for example" render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the use of both “fuel” and “pilot fuel” is confusing as to whether there are two different fuels requiring distinction or whether they refer to the same fuel.
Regarding claim 4, “eight swirling elements” is unclear whether these swirling elements are the same as, or different from, the at least one swirling element in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, “and/or the sleeve and/or the separating element” lack antecedent basis in the dependency chain because these components are not recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of a tubular element arranged in or downstream of the line element that has a smaller cross-section than the line element in order to provide the narrowing in claim 8, introduces ambiguity as to the proper definition of the term “taper” in claim 8 (i.e. whether taper requires a gradual narrowing or merely any kind of narrowing).
Regarding claim 10, “and/or of the at least one pilot fuel supply line” lacks antecedent basis in the dependency chain because this component is not recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the method step listing starting with (c) and (d) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether there should be a step (a) and step (b) (currently missing), or whether steps (c) and (d) are the only steps.
Additionally, since the claim refers to the pilot arrangement of claim 1, the recitations “a first component”, “at least one swirling element”, “a central body”, “a second component”, and “a pilot fuel nozzle” are unclear as to whether they are the same elements as previously claimed in claim 1 or new and different elements.
Regarding claim 14, “a pilot line” is unclear whether it is the same as, or different from, the pilot line of claim 1.
Furthermore, the claim appears to recite the second component as (for example) comprising a tubular element at a downstream end of a line element comprising the pilot line. But then, the claim proceeds to claim the pilot line as being coaxial with the line element as the downstream end of the pilot line. Thus, it is unclear whether the line element is part of the pilot line, the pilot line is part of the line element, or they are separate components. This also raises question as to where exactly the tubular element is (for example) located.
Furthermore, the use of the term “for example” is unclear as to which of the following elements and clauses is/are not optional or required.
Dependent Claims 2-15 are also rejected for relying on at least one rejected claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehlig 12601487.
Regarding Claim 1, Ehlig teaches a pilot arrangement (incl. 234, 232) for use in a nozzle device (200) of a gas turbine arrangement (Fig 1), comprising
a cavity (242), extending along a longitudinal axis (X1), for conducting fuel (col.6 ll.54-58), the narrowest flow cross section of which is larger than the largest flow cross section of a pilot line (244) of a pilot fuel nozzle (incl 244, 254), and
the pilot fuel nozzle, which adjoins the cavity in a downstream direction (via 246 and extending downstream therefrom; Figs 2-3) and comprises the pilot line and a pilot fuel outlet (254) arranged at the downstream end of the pilot line (Fig 3),
wherein the cavity is arranged in a central body (at least upstream half/portion of 276) arranged on the longitudinal axis, and wherein at least one swirling element (234) is arranged circumferentially around the central body (Figs 2-4),
wherein the central body and the at least one swirling element form a swirling arrangement (Figs 2-4),
wherein the pilot arrangement is made up of two components,
wherein a first component comprises the at least one swirling element and the central body, and a second component comprises the pilot fuel nozzle (one may define 234 and 276 as a first component and 244 w/254 as the second component).
Regarding claim 2, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches the first component is in the form of a cohesive, integral component (Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches the first component has at least one pilot fuel supply line (from 238 to 248) for supplying fuel into the cavity (Figs 2-4), wherein the at least one pilot fuel supply line passes through the at least one swirling element in order to conduct pilot fuel from a circumferential wall (226) of an inner air channel (225)radially inwardly into the cavity (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches the second component comprises a sleeve (downstream half/portion of 276), in particular a ceramic sleeve (col.5 ll.20-34), arranged circumferentially around the pilot line (Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ehlig further teaches the second component has a separating element (wall in which 246 is formed or portion of 276 that is between the sleeve and the centerbody; Fig 3 above) arranged between the upstream end of the sleeve and the cavity (Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches the second component comprises a lance (at least downstream half/portion of 276) which extends along the longitudinal axis and accommodates the pilot line (Fig 3) wherein the lance comprising the pilot line has an axial length such that the fuel outlet is positioned at least in a downstream third or quarter, preferably at least substantially at an outlet, of an inner air channel (225) of the nozzle device (Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches the flow cross section of the pilot line is round (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 11, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches a nozzle device (200) comprising the pilot arrangement according to Claim 1 and comprising an inner air channel (225), which is arranged on the longitudinal axis of the nozzle device and within which the pilot arrangement is arranged coaxially with the inner air channel (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 15, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches a gas turbine arrangement (Fig 1) comprising a combustion chamber arrangement (106) comprising at least one of the nozzle device according to Claim 11 and a turbine arrangement (108).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nickolaus 9404658.
Regarding claim 1, Nickolaus teaches a pilot arrangement (incl. 66, 68) for use in a nozzle device (Fig 2) of a gas turbine arrangement (Fig 1), in particular of an aircraft engine (col.2 ll.24-34), comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
604
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a cavity (Fig 3 above), extending along a longitudinal axis (dash-dot line in Fig 3 above), for conducting fuel (col.3 ll.4-8), the narrowest flow cross section of which is larger than the largest flow cross section of a pilot line (in 68) of a pilot fuel nozzle (entire fuel passage through 68), and
the pilot fuel nozzle, which adjoins the cavity in a downstream direction (Fig 3) and comprises the pilot line and a pilot fuel outlet (Fig 3 above) arranged at the downstream end of the pilot line (Fig 3),
wherein the cavity is arranged in a central body (central portion of 66) arranged on the longitudinal axis (Fig 3), and wherein at least one swirling element is arranged circumferentially around the central body (col.2 ll.57-end),
wherein the central body and the at least one swirling element form a swirling arrangement (60),
wherein the pilot arrangement is made up of two components (see below),
wherein a first component comprises the at least one swirling element and the central body, and a second component comprises the pilot fuel nozzle (one may define 66 as the first component and 68 as the second component).
Regarding claim 2, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches the first component is in the form of a cohesive, integral component (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches the second component comprises a sleeve (at least a portion of 68 downstream of the threaded portion) arranged circumferentially around the pilot line.
Regarding claim 6, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches the second component has a separating element, in particular a sealing separating element, arranged between the upstream end of the sleeve and the cavity (threaded portion of 68).
Regarding claim 7, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches the second component comprises a lance (68) which extends along the longitudinal axis and accommodates the pilot line (Fig 3), wherein the lance comprising the pilot line has an axial length such that the fuel outlet is positioned at least in a downstream third or quarter, preferably at least substantially at an outlet, of an inner air channel (64) of the nozzle device (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 8, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches the pilot line tapers towards a pilot fuel outlet by means of a narrowing (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above.
PNG
media_image3.png
604
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nickolaus further teaches the narrowing is formed by means of a tubular element (Fig 3 above) which is arranged downstream of a line element (Fig 3 above) of the pilot line and has a smaller flow cross section than the line element (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches the flow cross section of the pilot line is round (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 11, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches a nozzle device (Fig 2) comprising the pilot arrangement according to Claim 1 and comprising an inner air channel (64, 70), which is arranged on a longitudinal axis of the nozzle device and within which the pilot arrangement is arranged coaxially with the inner air channel (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches a gas turbine arrangement (Fig 1), in particular for an aircraft (col.2 ll.24-36), comprising a combustion chamber arrangement (54, 58) comprising at least one nozzle device according to Claim 11 and a turbine arrangement (56).
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.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehlig in view of Miyamoto 11274830.
Regarding claim 4, Ehlig teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Ehlig further teaches the first component has ten swirling elements (Fig 4), and that “the injector body 224 may include any number of swirler vanes 234 based on application attributes” (col.5 ll.63-65).
Ehlig does not teach the specific range of the number of swirling elements being at least five and at most eight swirling elements.
However, Miyamoto teaches using six swirl elements ([0078]; Fig 5).
Thus, the number of swirling elements in the fuel nozzles was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the prior art, in this case the appropriate number of swirl vanes depending on the application (Ehlig, col.5 ll.63-65), such that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable, in this case 5-8 (e.g. 6 vanes as taught by Miyamoto), may have been characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, in this case Ehlig and Miyamoto teaching all the claimed structural limitations, it has been held that the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by experimentation requiring only routine skill in the art, in this case the ability to for swirlers with different numbers of vanes, would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings in order to tailor the swirler vane number to the particular application. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickolaus in view of Sato 6282886.
Regarding claim 12, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches a method for producing a pilot arrangement which is designed according to Claim 1, comprising the steps of:
c. providing a first component comprising at least one swirling element and a central body (providing 66), and a second component comprising a pilot fuel nozzle (in 68);
d. fastening the two components together by threading together (Fig 3).
Nickolaus does not teach joining, for example brazing or welding, in addition to or alternatively to the threading.
However, Sato teaches adding anti-rotation weldments to threaded connections in gas turbine engine combustor sections to prevent rotation or loosening (col.16 ll.13-18; Fig 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally join (by welding) the threaded connection of Nickolaus as taught by Sato in order to prevent loosening (Sato, col.16 ll.13-18; Fig 14).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickolaus in view of Mao 8348180.
Regarding claim 13, Nickolaus teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Nickolaus further teaches said first component is manufactured, in particular integrally (Fig 3).
Nickolaus does not teach forming the first component (swirler), by means of milling, drilling and/or turning processes.
However, Mao teaches forming swirler components by milling (col.2 ll.16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the swirler first component of Nickolaus by milling as taught by Mao because Mao teaches milling is suitable for manufacturing swirler components for gas turbine combustor fuel nozzles (Mao, col.2 ll.12-18).
CorrespondenceAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-0900 AM ET M-F and 1-2PM T/R.
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.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights