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 19389456 filed 11/14/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1000 (see para. [0029]).
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at para. [0036] reference numeral 120 is used for both the inlet and the outlet.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 & 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 7:
The recitation “the supply amount or hydrogen mole fraction” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - a supply amount or a hydrogen mole fraction - -.
The recitation “the nitrogen oxides” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - nitrogen oxides - -.
Regarding Claim 9:
The recitation “the first nozzle… the second nozzle” is believed to be in error for - - a first nozzle of the plurality of first nozzles… a second nozzle of the plurality of second nozzles - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ciani EP 4394252 (copy provided by Applicant with IDS filed 11/19/2025).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ciani teaches an axial staged combustion system (Fig. 4), comprising:
a first combustion unit (12) formed with a primary combustion region (within 12) where first fuel gas is supplied and primary combustion occurs;
a second combustion unit (13) having a front end connected to a rear end of the first combustion unit (front end of 13 connected to rear end of 12) and formed with a secondary combustion region (within 13) to which the primary combustion gas combusted in the first combustion unit is supplied; and
a second fuel gas supply unit supplying second fuel gas to the secondary combustion region where the second fuel gas is mixed with the primary combustion gas and undergoes secondary combustion (second fuel gas supply unit at upstream end of 13 for injecting fuel F2 into the secondary combustion region).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Ciani further teaches the first fuel gas includes a mixture of ammonia and air (first fuel gas and mixture of ammonia and air not positively recited but an intended use, Ciani is capable of injecting ammonia and air at 12), and the second fuel gas includes a mixture of hydrogen and air (second fuel gas and mixture of hydrogen and air not positively recited but an intended use, Ciani is capable of injecting hydrogen and air at 13) such that the second fuel gas spontaneously ignites when mixed with the high-temperature primary combustion gas (desired result of operation of the claimed system, the respective gases/mixtures are not positively recited but Ciani is capable of the claimed functions).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Ciani further teaches the first fuel gas further contains hydrogen (first fuel gas and hydrogen are not positively recited but an intended use, Ciani is capable of injecting hydrogen with ammonia and air at 12).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ziminsky 20210301722.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Ciani teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Ciani further teaches a fuel nozzle unit that is connected to the front end of the first combustion unit and includes a first dump unit (see fuel nozzle unit at front end of 12)
Ciani fails to expressly teach the first dump unit having a plurality of first nozzles formed therein to inject fuel gas into the primary combustion region.
Ziminsky teaches a combustor (Fig. 3) with a first combustion unit (at 38) and a second combustion unit (at 39), the first combustion unit having a fuel nozzle unit including a first dump unit having a plurality of fuel nozzles connected to the front end of the first combustion unit (fuel nozzle unit 100 includes a first dump unit with a plurality of fuel nozzles – see Figs. 6-7 with fuel nozzles 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciani’s system such that the first dump unit having a plurality of first nozzles formed therein to inject fuel gas into the primary combustion region, as taught by Ziminsky, in order to minimize the time combustion gases spend within the combustion zone (Ziminsky; para. [0062]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciani in view of Ziminsky, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Marmilic 20140033728.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Ciani in view of Ziminsky teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, and Ciani further teaches the second fuel gas supply unit includes a second dump unit that is connected to the front end of the secondary combustion region and has a plurality of second nozzles formed therein (second fuel gas supply unit at 13 has a second dump unit where fuel F2 is injected at the front end of 13 and has a plurality of second nozzles as indicated by the discrete arrows showing fuel injection into 13).
Ciani fails to teach the number of second nozzles is less than the number of first nozzles (the number of nozzles in the second dump unit taught by Ciani is clearly greater than 1 but is not otherwise more specifically known).
Marmilic teaches a sequential combustor arrangement (Fig. 4) with a plurality of fuel nozzles (in burner groups 201) upstream of a first combustion unit (3) and a plurality of fuel nozzles (202) upstream of a second combustion unit (4), with the number of second nozzles being less than the number of first nozzles (there are fewer nozzles 202 than nozzles 201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciani in view of Ziminsky’s system such that the number of second nozzles is less than the number of first nozzles, as taught by Marmilic, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Ciani in view of Ziminsky’s arrangement of a large number of first nozzles and an unknown number of second nozzles versus the claimed arrangement wherein the number of second nozzles is less than the number of first nozzles, as taught by Marmilic), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both Ciani in view of Ziminsky’s arrangement and the claimed arrangement were known for providing sequential combustion using respective pluralities of fuel nozzles upstream from respective combustion zones), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Ciani in view of Ziminsky’s arrangement or the claimed arrangement taught by Marmilic could have been used to predictably provide sufficient fuel nozzles for operation of a sequential combustion system). Note that Ziminsky teaches a large number of fuel nozzles (106) and that Marmilic teaches a relatively limited number of fuel nozzles (202). The proposed modification does not replace the nozzles incorporated into Ciani from Ziminsky but merely sets the number of nozzles in Ciani’s second dump unit at 13 to be relatively low (i.e. lower than the number of nozzles from Ziminsky). The evidence on the record suggests that the number of nozzles at each combustion stage can be selected as desired and various combinations of configurations were known, including the claimed arrangement. It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Ciani in view of Ziminsky further in view of Marmilic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Ciani further teaches the second dump unit supplies the second fuel gas to the second combustion region (second dump unit supplies F2 to region in 13).
Marmilic further teaches the second dump unit is connected to a side surface of the second combustion unit so that the second fuel gas is injected orthogonally to a flow direction of the first combustion gas (202 connected to side surface of 4 so that second fuel is injected orthogonally to a flow direction of gas from upstream nozzles 201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciani in view of Ziminsky further in view of Marmilic’s system such that the second dump unit is connected to a side surface of the second combustion unit so that the second fuel gas is injected orthogonally to a flow direction of the first combustion gas, as taught by Marmilic, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Ciani in view of Ziminsky further in view of Marmilic’s arrangement with fuel injected parallel to the first combustion gas versus the claimed injection orthogonal to the flow direction of the first combustion gas as taught by Marmilic), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both Ciani in view of Ziminsky further in view of Marmilic’s arrangement with parallel injection and the claimed arrangement with orthogonal injection as taught by Marmilic were known for providing fuel in a sequential combustor), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Ciani in view of Ziminsky further in view of Marmilic’s parallel injection or Marmilic’s orthogonal injection could have been used to predictably provide fuel for sequential combustion). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito 20200018231.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Ciani teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Ciani fails to expressly teach a sampling unit sampling exhaust gas emitted from the second combustion unit; and an analysis unit analyzing components of the exhaust gas sampled through the sampling unit.
Ito teaches a sampling unit and an analysis unit (gas analyzer 8 samples and analyzes gas; paras. [0033]-[0034]) which samples exhaust gas emitted from a combustion unit and analyzes components of the exhaust gas (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciani’s system to include a sampling unit sampling exhaust gas emitted from the second combustion unit; and an analysis unit analyzing components of the exhaust gas sampled through the sampling unit, as taught by Ito, in order to determine residual ammonia and nitrogen oxide in the combustion exhaust gas (Ito; para. [0033]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Ciani in view of Ito teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 6, and Ito further teaches a control unit (9) calculating the supply amount or hydrogen mole fraction of the second fuel gas at which the nitrogen oxides analyzed by the analysis unit are minimized (Ito calculates a supply amount of ammonia in order to minimize nitrogen oxides in the exhaust; para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciani in view of Ito’s system to include a control unit calculating the supply amount or hydrogen mole fraction of the second fuel gas at which the nitrogen oxides analyzed by the analysis are minimized, as taught by Ito, in order to bring the Nox concentration to equal or less than a regulatory value (Ito; para. [0042]). Note that Ciani provides hydrogen fuel from an ammonia fuel source and therefore Ito’s controller would be appropriate for combination to ensure there is not too much ammonia or nitrogen oxides.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciani in view of Ito, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jia 20080264310.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Ciani in view of Ito teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 7, but Ciani in view of Ito fails to teach the control unit calculates a distance between the front end of the first combustion unit and the front end of the second combustion unit at which the nitrogen oxides analyzed by the analysis unit are minimized.
Jia teaches a controller which reduces NOx and calculates a distance from the burner to a flame front (para. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciani in view of Ito’s system to calculate a distance from the burner to a flame front, as taught by Jia, in order to prevent the flame front from becoming too close to downstream components in the system (Jia; para. [0008]). Note that the claim merely requires the calculation of a distance (the method of determining the distance is not recited, which might otherwise distinguish over Jia’s calculation), which distance could be labeled as that between the front end of the first combustion unit and the front end of the second combustion unit. The front end of the first combustion unit is not required to be at the claimed distance from the front end of the second combustion unit.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciani in view of Ziminsky and further in view of Marmilic, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Martin 4669399.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Ciani in view of Ziminsky and further in view of Marmilic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Ciani in view of Ziminsky further in view of Marmilic teaches a diameter of the first nozzle and a diameter of the second nozzle (these diameters are inherent).
Ciani in view of Ziminsky and further in view of Marmilic fails to expressly teach the diameter of the first nozzle is 6.0 to 7.0 mm, and the diameter of the second nozzle is the same as that of the first nozzle.
It has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05II(B).
Martin teaches that the diameter and speed of fuel nozzles must be optimized (Col. 1, ll. 37-41), which inherently teaches that the diameter of fuel nozzles was a result-effective variable (otherwise optimization would not be possible). Thus, Martin clearly teaches that the determination of fuel nozzle diameter is a matter of optimization via routine experimentation.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II(A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciani in view of Ziminsky and further in view of Marmilic’s system to determine the optimum or workable ranges of fuel nozzle diameter for each of the first nozzle and the second nozzle, as taught by Martin, in order to optimally size fuel nozzles as a matter of routine experimentation.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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
