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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the present case, the applicant claims “means for moving fluid configured to create a movement of fluid” in claims 1, 12, and 18. The applicant’s specification states “The means for moving fluid can comprise a ventilator. The means for moving fluid can be situated in the proximity of the combustive fluid inlet, so as to push the combustive fluid, and/or in the proximity of the fluid outlet, so as to draw the fluid.” Therefore, “means for moving fluid” will be interpreted as a ventilator, blower, fan, or equivalent thereof.
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, 3, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keough (US 3137486 A), hereinafter Keough, in view of Iseda (JP 3722410 B2), hereinafter Iseda, and further in view of Collier (US 4705022 A), hereinafter Collier.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Keough discloses a heating device, comprising:
a combustive fluid inlet (“A flow of a combustion supporting gas, such as air, is maintained through the pipe 60 during operation of the burner assembly 20” column 4, line 42);
a combustible fluid inlet (“a combustible fuel, such as natural gas in admixture with air, is introduced through the pipe 57” column 4, line 50);
a combustion head configured to emit a flame (“ignition of this combustible mixture occurring exteriorly of the burner head 56, i.e. somewhere within the upper regions of the stub 31 or the lower regions of the radiant tube 30” column 4, line 52);
a first fluid connection comprising a first pipe and connected fluidically to the combustive fluid inlet and to the combustion head, a first end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustive fluid inlet, a second end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustion head (31);
a second fluid connection comprising a second pipe connected fluidically to the combustible fluid inlet and to the combustion head, at least a section of the second pipe being housed in the first pipe (57);
a heat-emitting tube having a first part in fluid communication with the first fluid connection and configured to receive the combustion head and a flame emitted by the combustion head (30);
a fluid outlet connected fluidically to the first part of the heat-emitting tube via a second part of the heat-emitting tube (At 28,29); and
a movement of fluid between:
the combustive fluid inlet and the combustion head via the first fluid connection (Via 31); and
the first part of the heat-emitting tube and the second part of the heat-emitting tube (Via 30),
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance, and wherein the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance in such a way that the distance between the combustion head and the fluid inlets creates a non-heated zone that thermally protects the fluid inlets from heat generated by the combustion head, wherein the non-heated zone enables the combustion head to operate in high-temperature environments while maintaining the fluid inlets at a lower temperature (“the swirling of combustion air through the casting 35 will continually cool the interior surface of this casting and of the lower extremity of the stub 31. As a consequence, the sealant chamber 42 will remain relatively cool, i.e. in actual practice, the exposed lower end of the casting 35 and the walls 41 are cool to the touch” column 4, line 75).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keough does not disclose:
said section being flexible;
means for moving the fluid;
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 2m, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 2m.
However, Iseda teaches said section being flexible (“The gas supply pipe 24 is partially configured as a flexible pipe 25” paragraph [0024]).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Iseda’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include said section being flexible as is taught in Iseda, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In the present case, a flexible section permits a level of adjustability which is not a patentable advance.
Keough, as modified by Iseda, does not disclose:
means for moving the fluid;
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 2m, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 2m.
However, Collier teaches means for moving the fluid (“A combustion air pipe 25 extends into one side of the housing and communicates with a blower (not shown) or other means for producing a flow of forced combustion air” column 2, line 33).
PNG
media_image3.png
264
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Keough does not disclose the claimed means for moving fluid. However, Collier teaches the claimed means for moving fluid. The substitution of one known element (the means of Keough) for another (the means of Collier) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the blower taught in Collier would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for advancing air into the heating device Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, does not disclose wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 2m, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 2m. However, it has been held that “[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.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Keough discloses that the combustion head extends into the combustive fluid pipe a certain distance, but does not specifically recite at least 2m. Achieving at least 2m is a results-effective variable because Keough states “the swirling of combustion air through the casting 35 will continually cool the interior surface of this casting and of the lower extremity of the stub 31. As a consequence, the sealant chamber 42 will remain relatively cool, i.e. in actual practice, the exposed lower end of the casting 35 and the walls 41 are cool to the touch” (column 4, line 75). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance, because the selection of distance to achieve cooling of the upstream section constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Keough, as modified by Iseda, discloses the heating device of claim 1, wherein the first pipe is rigid (“mullite stub 31” column 3, line 43).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keough, in view of Iseda, in view of Collier, in view of Ahmady (US 20050175944 A1), hereinafter Ahmady, and further in view of Acton (US 5127826 A), hereinafter Acton.
Regarding claim 2, Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, discloses the heating device of Claim 1.
Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, does not disclose wherein the combustion head comprises peripheral combustive fluid openings, a Venturi tube, an ionization electrode and an ignition electrode, the peripheral combustive fluid openings being located between the second pipe and the Venturi tube.
However, Ahmady teaches wherein the combustion head comprises peripheral combustive fluid openings, a Venturi tube, a flame monitor and an ignition electrode, the peripheral combustive fluid openings being located between the second pipe and the Venturi tube (“With respect to the general overall operation of the heater, gas is supplied to the interior of burner 18 via line 36, and air is supplied to the burner 18 via blower 20 with the air from the blower 20 entering into the interior of the venturi through the perforations 38a for mixture with the gas. Air also passes into tube inlet end 14a outwardly of the venturi for passage through vanes 18c, which act to impart a swirl to the air to facilitate the air/gas nixing. It will be understood that ignition is accomplished in a known manner by a pilotless direct spark utilizing an ignition module (not shown) and that burner operation is monitored and controlled in a known manner by an ignition detection control (not shown)” paragraph [0036]).
PNG
media_image4.png
436
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Ahmady’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the combustion head comprises peripheral combustive fluid openings, a Venturi tube, a flame monitor, and an ignition electrode, the peripheral combustive fluid openings being located between the second pipe and the Venturi tube as is taught in Ahmady, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because “entering into the interior of the venturi through the perforations 38a for mixture with the gas” will improve mixing of fuel and air. Additionally, “ignition is accomplished in a known manner by a pilotless direct spark” simplifies ignition. Further, monitoring ignition will minimize risk of improper operation. Therefore, including the teachings of Ahmady will improve mixing, simplify ignition, and reduce risk in Keough.
Keough, as modified by Iseda, Collier, and Ahmady, does not explicitly disclose wherein the flame monitor is an ionization electrode.
However, Acton further teaches wherein the flame monitor is an ionization electrode (“an ionization probe for flame sensing” column 2, line 46).
Ahmady does not teach the claimed flame sensing device. Acton teaches the claimed flame sensing device. The substitution of one known element (the flame monitor of Ahmady) for another (the ionization electrode of Acton) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the ionization electrode taught in Acton would have yielded predictable results, namely, detection of the presence of a flame Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keough, in view of Iseda, in view of Collier, and further in view of Keller (US 3225757 A), hereinafter Keller.
Regarding claim 5, Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, discloses the heating device of Claim 1.
Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, does not disclose wherein the combustion head is mechanically coupled to the first part of the heat-emitting tube by coupling elements fixed to the combustion head and slidably arranged along one or more of an inner surface of the second pipe and an inner surface of the heat-emitting tube.
However, Keller teaches wherein the combustion head is mechanically coupled to the first part of the heat-emitting tube by coupling elements fixed to the combustion head and slidably arranged along one or more of an inner surface of the second pipe and an inner surface of the heat-emitting tube (“Spider brackets 13, FIGURE 1, slidable within 2, hold the air tube 6 in spaced relation to the housing or outer tube 2 while spider brackets 14 hold the fuel tube 9 in spaced relation to air tube 6” column 1, line 67).
PNG
media_image5.png
222
742
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Keller’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the combustion head is mechanically coupled to the first part of the heat-emitting tube by coupling elements fixed to the combustion head and slidably arranged along one or more of an inner surface of the second pipe and an inner surface of the heat-emitting tube as is taught in Keller, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because Keller states the coupling supports the pipes in spaced relation. Therefore, including the features taught by Keller will improve support of the pipes in Keough.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keough, in view of Iseda, in view of Collier, and further in view of Schwank (US 20080178860 A1), hereinafter Schwank.
Regarding claim 6, Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, discloses the heating device of Claim 1.
Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, does not disclose wherein the heat-emitting tube comprises a section configured for disassembly, said section configured for disassembly being fixed by flanges or straps to the remainder of the heat-emitting tube.
However, Schwank teaches wherein the heat-emitting tube comprises a section configured for disassembly, said section configured for disassembly being fixed by flanges or straps to the remainder of the heat-emitting tube (“The exiting mixture is ignited by an ionization electrode 48 of an igniter 50 to produce a long laminar flame that extends substantially the length of the radiant heating tube 12. The radiant tube can be connected by means of an end flange 52 to a connecting flange 54 formed on the downstream end of the duct section 18. Bolts and nuts can be used to connect these two flanges” paragraph [0032]).
PNG
media_image6.png
350
628
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Schwank’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the heat-emitting tube comprises a section configured for disassembly, said section configured for disassembly being fixed by flanges or straps to the remainder of the heat-emitting tube as is taught in Schwank, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because including a disassembly section will enable components to be removed from each other for maintenance or replacement. Additionally, the court has held that separability is indicia of obviousness In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keough, in view of Iseda, in view of Collier, and further in view of Bisson (US 20140008048 A1), hereinafter Bisson.
Regarding claims 7-9, Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, discloses the heating device of Claim 1.
Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, does not disclose wherein the second pipe comprises a 316Ti stainless steel configured to support a temperature of at least 300°C.
However, Bisson teaches a 316Ti stainless steel, configured to support a temperature of at least 300°C (“The tubular radiant element 10 may be made of a metal material resistant to high temperatures, optionally as metal alloys, in particular capable of resisting at least up to 1300° C., such as: nickel and chromium alloys, for example Inconel 600, 601 or 602, Incoloy 800, Incoloy 800H, AISI304, 310, 309, 309S, 316, 316Ti, 330, 321, AVESTA235MA, ALUFER, ALLOY X, Kanthal materials such as APM, APMT, et cetera, Mitsubishi materials such as MA230, MA250, et cetera, cast-iron Ni-resist or other cast iron derivatives, molten metal materials with or without nickel, chromium, aluminium components et cetera, such as Gx40CrNi 26-20, KHR48N, KHR35H, et cetera, and/or other materials suitable for the purpose” paragraph [0038] emphasis added).
In view of Bisson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include 316Ti stainless steel as is taught in Bisson, in the heating device disclosed by Iseda because Bisson states that the material is resistant to high temperatures. The second pipe of Iseda is a high temperature structure. Therefore, including the material taught by Bisson will improve resistance to temperature in Iseda. Additionally, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this regard, it is noted that Bisson teaches 316Ti for high temperature applications. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the high temperature tube of Iseda from 316Ti.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keough, in view of Iseda, in view of Collier, and further in view of Blackman (US 2903051 A), hereinafter Blackman.
Regarding claim 11, Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, discloses the heating device of Claim 10, wherein the second pipe is in a flexible material (“The gas supply pipe 24 is partially configured as a flexible pipe 25” paragraph [0024]).
Keough, as modified by Iseda and Collier, does not disclose wherein the first pipe has an angle, and wherein the second pipe is bent inside the angle of the first pipe.
However, Blackman teaches wherein the first pipe has an angle, and wherein the second pipe is bent inside the angle of the first pipe (“In order to direct the air and fuel supply and the flame from burner B in such a manner that hot spots at or adjacent the inlet elbow 5 of the combustion tube will be avoided, the outer elbow portion 33 of the ignition chamber is provided” column 3, line 39).
PNG
media_image7.png
272
674
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Blackman’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the first pipe has an angle, and wherein the second pipe is bent inside the angle of the first pipe as is taught in Blackman, in the heating device disclosed by Iseda because Blackman states “combustion tubes are supported by the furnace wall and have their inlet and outlet ends extending through the wall while the main body of the combustion tube, which may be straight, U-shaped or 0-shaped, is disposed parallel to the wall” (column 1, line 23). Furthermore, Blackman states that this configuration avoids hot spots. Therefore, including the configuration taught by Blackman will enable variety in shape while avoiding hotspots in the heating device disclosed by Iseda.
Claims 12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 107685074 A), hereinafter Yang, in view of Keough, in view of Iseda, in view of Collier.
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses an earth decontamination installation comprising a mass of earth and a heating device, the heating device comprising:
a fluid inlet (“heat source 12 to generate high temperature gas, high temperature air with high temperature flue gas and high temperature gas is a gas generated by combustion” description section. All citations from machine translation appended to foreign reference);
a first fluid connection comprising a first pipe and connected fluidically to the fluid inlet (“hot air conveying pipe 7” description section);
a heat-emitting tube having a first part in fluid communication with the first fluid connection (“air heating pipe comprises a buried in the soil 2 in the sleeve 5” description section);
a fluid outlet connected fluidically to the first part of the heat-emitting tube via a second part of the heat-emitting tube (“exhaust pipe 5.1” description section); and
wherein the combustive fluid inlet, the combustible fluid inlet and the fluid outlet are located outside the mass of earth, and at least part of the heat-emitting tube is located within the mass of earth (Figure 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
428
618
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Yang does not disclose the heating device comprising:
a combustive fluid inlet;
a combustible fluid inlet;
a combustion head configured to emit a flame;
the first fluid connection connected fluidically to the combustive fluid inlet and to the combustion head, a first end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustive fluid inlet, a second end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustion head;
a second fluid connection comprising a second pipe connected fluidically to the combustible fluid inlet and to the combustion head, at least a section of the second pipe being housed in the first pipe, said section being flexible;
the heat-emitting tube configured to receive the combustion head and a flame emitted by the combustion head; and
means for moving fluid configured to create a movement of fluid between:
the combustive fluid inlet and the combustion head via the first fluid connection; and
the first part of the heat-emitting tube and the second part of the heat-emitting tube,
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50 cm in such a way that the distance between the combustion head and the fluid inlets creates a non-heated zone that thermally protects the fluid inlets from heat generated by the combustion head, wherein the non-heated zone enables the combustion head to operate in high-temperature environments while maintaining the fluid inlets at a lower temperature.
However, Keough teaches the heating device comprising:
a combustive fluid inlet (“A flow of a combustion supporting gas, such as air, is maintained through the pipe 60 during operation of the burner assembly 20” column 4, line 42);
a combustible fluid inlet (“a combustible fuel, such as natural gas in admixture with air, is introduced through the pipe 57” column 4, line 50);
a combustion head configured to emit a flame (“ignition of this combustible mixture occurring exteriorly of the burner head 56, i.e. somewhere within the upper regions of the stub 31 or the lower regions of the radiant tube 30” column 4, line 52);
the first fluid connection connected fluidically to the combustive fluid inlet and to the combustion head, a first end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustive fluid inlet, a second end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustion head (31);
a second fluid connection comprising a second pipe connected fluidically to the combustible fluid inlet and to the combustion head, at least a section of the second pipe being housed in the first pipe (57);
the heat-emitting tube configured to receive the combustion head and a flame emitted by the combustion head (30); and
a movement of fluid between:
the combustive fluid inlet and the combustion head via the first fluid connection (Via 31); and
the first part of the heat-emitting tube and the second part of the heat-emitting tube (Via 30),
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance, and wherein the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance in such a way that the distance between the combustion head and the fluid inlets creates a non-heated zone that thermally protects the fluid inlets from heat generated by the combustion head, wherein the non-heated zone enables the combustion head to operate in high-temperature environments while maintaining the fluid inlets at a lower temperature (“the swirling of combustion air through the casting 35 will continually cool the interior surface of this casting and of the lower extremity of the stub 31. As a consequence, the sealant chamber 42 will remain relatively cool, i.e. in actual practice, the exposed lower end of the casting 35 and the walls 41 are cool to the touch” column 4, line 75).
In view of Keough's teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the burner of Keough because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Yang discloses “high temperature gas is a gas generated by combustion”, but is silent on the details of the combustion apparatus. Keough teaches a particular combustion apparatus. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
said section being flexible;
means for moving the fluid;
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm.
However, Iseda teaches said section being flexible (“The gas supply pipe 24 is partially configured as a flexible pipe 25” paragraph [0024]).
In view of Iseda’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include said section being flexible as is taught in Iseda, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In the present case, a flexible section permits a level of adjustability which is not a patentable advance.
Yang, as modified by Keough and Iseda, does not disclose:
means for moving the fluid;
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm.
However, Collier teaches means for moving the fluid (“A combustion air pipe 25 extends into one side of the housing and communicates with a blower (not shown) or other means for producing a flow of forced combustion air” column 2, line 33).
Keough does not disclose the claimed means for moving fluid. However, Collier teaches the claimed means for moving fluid. The substitution of one known element (the means of Keough) for another (the means of Collier) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the blower taught in Collier would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for advancing air into the heating device Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, does not disclose wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm. However, it has been held that “[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.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Keough discloses that the combustion head extends into the combustive fluid pipe a certain distance, but does not specifically recite at least 50cm. Achieving at least 50cm is a results-effective variable because Keough states “the swirling of combustion air through the casting 35 will continually cool the interior surface of this casting and of the lower extremity of the stub 31. As a consequence, the sealant chamber 42 will remain relatively cool, i.e. in actual practice, the exposed lower end of the casting 35 and the walls 41 are cool to the touch” (column 4, line 75). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance, because the selection of distance to achieve cooling of the upstream section constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, discloses the earth decontamination installation of claim 12, wherein at least part of the combustion head is located within the mass of earth (The combustion head of Iseda is located in the heat-emitting tube which is located within the mass of earth of Yang as modified).
Regarding claim 18, Yang discloses an earth decontamination installation comprising a mass of earth and a plurality of heating devices, each of the heating devices comprising:
a fluid inlet (“heat source 12 to generate high temperature gas, high temperature air with high temperature flue gas and high temperature gas is a gas generated by combustion” description section. All citations from machine translation appended to foreign reference);
a first fluid connection comprising a first pipe and connected fluidically to the fluid inlet (“hot air conveying pipe 7” description section);
a heat-emitting tube having a first part in fluid communication with the first fluid connection (“air heating pipe comprises a buried in the soil 2 in the sleeve 5” description section);
a fluid outlet connected fluidically to the first part of the heat-emitting tube via a second part of the heat-emitting tube (“exhaust pipe 5.1” description section); and
wherein the combustive fluid inlet, the combustible fluid inlet and the fluid outlet are located outside the mass of earth, and at least part of the heat-emitting tube is located within the mass of earth (Figure 5).
Yang does not disclose the heating device comprising:
a combustive fluid inlet;
a combustible fluid inlet;
a combustion head configured to emit a flame;
the first fluid connection connected fluidically to the combustive fluid inlet and to the combustion head;
a second fluid connection comprising a second pipe connected fluidically to the combustible fluid inlet and to the combustion head, at least a section of the second pipe being housed in the first pipe, said section being flexible;
the heat-emitting tube configured to receive the combustion head and a flame emitted by the combustion head; and
means for moving fluid configured to create a movement of fluid between:
the combustive fluid inlet and the combustion head via the first fluid connection; and
the first part of the heat-emitting tube and the second part of the heat-emitting tube,
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm in such a way that the distance between the combustion head and the fluid inlets creates a non-heated zone that thermally protects the fluid inlets from heat generated by the combustion head, wherein the non-heated zone enables the combustion head to operate in high-temperature environments while maintaining the fluid inlets at a lower temperature.
However, Keough teaches the heating device comprising:
a combustive fluid inlet (“A flow of a combustion supporting gas, such as air, is maintained through the pipe 60 during operation of the burner assembly 20” column 4, line 42);
a combustible fluid inlet (“a combustible fuel, such as natural gas in admixture with air, is introduced through the pipe 57” column 4, line 50);
a combustion head configured to emit a flame (“ignition of this combustible mixture occurring exteriorly of the burner head 56, i.e. somewhere within the upper regions of the stub 31 or the lower regions of the radiant tube 30” column 4, line 52);
the first fluid connection connected fluidically to the combustive fluid inlet and to the combustion head, a first end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustive fluid inlet, a second end of the first pipe being proximate to the combustion head (31);
a second fluid connection comprising a second pipe connected fluidically to the combustible fluid inlet and to the combustion head, at least a section of the second pipe being housed in the first pipe (57);
the heat-emitting tube configured to receive the combustion head and a flame emitted by the combustion head (30); and
a movement of fluid between:
the combustive fluid inlet and the combustion head via the first fluid connection (Via 31); and
the first part of the heat-emitting tube and the second part of the heat-emitting tube (Via 30),
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance, and wherein the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance in such a way that the distance between the combustion head and the fluid inlets creates a non-heated zone that thermally protects the fluid inlets from heat generated by the combustion head, wherein the non-heated zone enables the combustion head to operate in high-temperature environments while maintaining the fluid inlets at a lower temperature (“the swirling of combustion air through the casting 35 will continually cool the interior surface of this casting and of the lower extremity of the stub 31. As a consequence, the sealant chamber 42 will remain relatively cool, i.e. in actual practice, the exposed lower end of the casting 35 and the walls 41 are cool to the touch” column 4, line 75).
In view of Keough's teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the burner of Keough because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Yang discloses “high temperature gas is a gas generated by combustion”, but is silent on the details of the combustion apparatus. Keough teaches a particular combustion apparatus. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
said section being flexible;
means for moving the fluid;
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm.
However, Iseda teaches said section being flexible (“The gas supply pipe 24 is partially configured as a flexible pipe 25” paragraph [0024]).
In view of Iseda’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include said section being flexible as is taught in Iseda, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In the present case, a flexible section permits a level of adjustability which is not a patentable advance.
Yang, as modified by Keough and Iseda, does not disclose:
means for moving the fluid;
wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm.
However, Collier teaches means for moving the fluid (“A combustion air pipe 25 extends into one side of the housing and communicates with a blower (not shown) or other means for producing a flow of forced combustion air” column 2, line 33).
Keough does not disclose the claimed means for moving fluid. However, Collier teaches the claimed means for moving fluid. The substitution of one known element (the means of Keough) for another (the means of Collier) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the blower taught in Collier would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for advancing air into the heating device Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, does not disclose wherein the combustion head and the combustible fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm, and wherein that the combustion head and the combustive fluid inlet are separated by a distance of at least 50cm. However, it has been held that “[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.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Keough discloses that the combustion head extends into the combustive fluid pipe a certain distance, but does not specifically recite at least 50cm. Achieving at least 50cm is a results-effective variable because Keough states “the swirling of combustion air through the casting 35 will continually cool the interior surface of this casting and of the lower extremity of the stub 31. As a consequence, the sealant chamber 42 will remain relatively cool, i.e. in actual practice, the exposed lower end of the casting 35 and the walls 41 are cool to the touch” (column 4, line 75). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance, because the selection of distance to achieve cooling of the upstream section constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, discloses the earth decontamination installation of claim 18, wherein the heat-emitting tubes of the various heating devices are at different height, and the combustible fluid inlets of the various heating devices are at the same height (Figure 5 shows the heat emitting tubes at a variety of heights and the fluid inlets at a centralized location).
Regarding claim 20, Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, disclose the earth decontamination installation of claim 18, wherein the plurality of heating devices comprises at least three heating devices of which the emitting tubes are distributed over the length, the width and/or the height of the mass of earth (Figure 5).
Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Keough, in view of Iseda, in view of Collier, and further in view of Blackman.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, disclose the earth decontamination installation of claim 12, wherein the heat-emitting tube is inside the mass of earth, wherein a vertical offset separates the heat-emitting tube and the combustive fluid inlet (Figure 5 shows the heat emitting tubes at a variety of heights and the fluid inlets at a centralized location).
Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, does not disclose wherein the heat-emitting tube is bent, said vertical offset being accommodated by an angle in the first pipe and a bent in the second pipe.
However, Blackman teaches wherein the heat-emitting tube is bent, said vertical offset being accommodated by an angle in the first pipe and a bent in the second pipe (“inlet elbow 5 connects the inlet section 1 to the main heating section 3” column 2, line 12 and “31 includes a straight tubular portion 32, cylindrical as shown and an outer elbow portion 33” column 3, line 19).
In view of Blackman’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the heat-emitting tube is bent, said vertical offset being accommodated by an angle in the first pipe and a bent in the second pipe as is taught in Blackman, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because Blackman states “combustion tubes are supported by the furnace wall and have their inlet and outlet ends extending through the wall while the main body of the combustion tube, which may be straight, U-shaped or 0-shaped, is disposed parallel to the wall” (column 1, line 23). Furthermore, Blackman states that this configuration avoids hot spots. Therefore, including the configuration taught by Blackman will enable variety in shape while avoiding hotspots in the heating device disclosed by Keough.
Regarding claim 15, Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, Collier, and Blackman, discloses the earth decontamination installation of claim 14.
Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, Collier, and Blackman, wherein the vertical offset is at least 0.5 meters. However, it has been held that “[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.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Yang discloses a vertical offset, but does not specifically recite at least 0.5 meters. Achieving at least 0.5 meters is a results-effective variable because increasing the distance allows an increase in the height of the earth mound permitting a greater volume of earth to be decontaminated. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance, because the selection of distance to achieve increased decontamination constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, discloses the earth decontamination installation of claim 12, wherein the second pipe is in a flexible material (As taught by Iseda).
Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, and Collier, does not disclose wherein the first pipe has two bends, and wherein the second pipe is bent within the bends of the first pipe.
However, Blackman teaches wherein the first pipe has a bend, and wherein the second pipe is bent within the bend of the first pipe (“In order to direct the air and fuel supply and the flame from burner B in such a manner that hot spots at or adjacent the inlet elbow 5 of the combustion tube will be avoided, the outer elbow portion 33 of the ignition chamber is provided” column 3, line 39).
In view of Blackman’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the first pipe has a bend, and wherein the second pipe is bent within the bend of the first pipe as is taught in Blackman, in the heating device disclosed by Keough because Blackman states “combustion tubes are supported by the furnace wall and have their inlet and outlet ends extending through the wall while the main body of the combustion tube, which may be straight, U-shaped or 0-shaped, is disposed parallel to the wall” (column 1, line 23). Furthermore, Blackman states that this configuration avoids hot spots. Therefore, including the configuration taught by Blackman will enable variety in shape while avoiding hotspots in the heating device disclosed by Iseda.
Yang, as modified by Keough, Iseda, Collier, and Blackman, does not disclose plural bends. However, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In the present case, Blackman teaches a single bend, however more bends would predictably result in more variation in shape which is not new or unexpected. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the first pipe with more than one bend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Oberle (US 10201042 B1) “the flexible helical heater may be inserted into a casing positioned in a subsurface hole to provide thermal conduction heating to remove contaminants from soil, groundwater or rock” column 1, line 64
Salomonsson (US 2902270 A) “This invention relates to a method and means in the exploitation of geological deposits for the recovery of fluid or/and gaseous products by heating of said deposits "in situ," i.e. in place in the earth.” column 1, line 18
PNG
media_image9.png
560
196
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Woodson (US 2200731 A)
PNG
media_image10.png
234
744
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ruckstahl (US 2220582 A)
PNG
media_image11.png
278
696
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Hirano (US 20140041559 A1) “the gas fuel supply tube 10 is comprised of a flexible tube to be flexible for allowing position adjustment of the burner B along its longitudinal direction” paragraph [0069]
PNG
media_image12.png
466
692
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Unterstenhoefer (US 3401680 A) “The lengths of the individual portions of the burner tube 8 and the inner tube 9 are chosen so that, when the burner is introduced into the heating tube 7 and the burner flange 2 is connected to the heating tube flange 6, the burner throat 12 and consequently the point at which burning begins is at that point in the heating tube 7 where heat development should begin” column 3, line 35
PNG
media_image13.png
266
604
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Balch (US 5228804 A)
PNG
media_image14.png
420
540
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762