DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
should the claim 1 instant phrase be maintained in light of the 112(b) section below, such phrase should be changed accordingly at line 14: “portion of the pressurized air”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The phrase “a … portion the pressurized air flows into the combustion chamber only through the plurality of plenum tubes” appears to be new matter. The use of the term “only” results in a negative limitation. Negative limitations are not per se improper however they must find support in the original disclosure. Applicant has cited pars. 48 and 59 as providing support for the amendment. However there does not appear to be support for the negative limitation is such paragraphs. It is noted that the full scope of the amended limitations cannot be fully evaluated because such limitations appear to be indefinite as discussed in the 112(b) section below.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-6 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of the claim 1 phrase “pressurized air flows from the air source through the port and into the space such that a first portion the pressurized air flows into the combustion chamber only through the plurality of plenum tubes and a second portion of the pressurized air flows through the pressure vessel and around and external to the combustion chamber” appears to be unclear. Applicant appears to be reciting that air flowing through the port 82 and the air flowing through the plenum tubes is from the same source. However this is contrary to applicant disclosure. For example, on the one hand “pressurized air” (see par. 59) through first port 82 is from turbine 22 compressor 31 (see annotated figure below). On the other hand “combustion air” (see pars. 49 and 59) flowing through plenum tubes 81 is from turbine 38 and flows through heat exchanger 24 and second port 35 before flowing through plenum tubes 81 to arrive at combustion chamber 26 (see annotated figure below and fig. 4). The claim is interpreted such that the first air that flows into the combustion changer through the plurality of plenum tubes is not required to be from the same source and the second air that flows through the pressure vessel via the port and around and external to the combustion chamber. More specifically the claim is interpreted as below:
“wherein during operation, pressurized air flows from the air source through the port and into the space such that an air flows into the combustion chamber only through the plurality of plenum tubes and the pressurized air flows through the pressure vessel and around and external to the combustion chamber”. This text is used in the claim 1 103 section below.
claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (port 82 (see fig. 4) wherein the side by side configuration of combustion system 21 and particle separator 23 has been transposed)][AltContent: arrow]
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,269,755 B1 (Boswell) in view of and US Patent 5,720,165 (Rizzie).
Regarding claim 1, Boswell discloses (see fig. 2) a combustion system comprising: a combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2), the combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) being configured to combust solid organic material (see wood waste and saw dust for example at col. 1, ll. 10-15); a conical plenum (see annotated figure below) disposed within the combustion chamber, the conical plenum being configured to distribute (see col. 7, ll. 60-65: “tower 13 includes through its side openings (… [plenum tubes]) 14 for ignition fuel and ignition air entry into the transition section 65”) the solid organic material to a perimeter of the combustion chamber (sawdust from chute 17 occupies the volumes of funnel section 5 and annulus 19 by way of the cyclonic action created by tubes 7 and plenum tubes 14; see col. 7, ll. 8-10 and thus sawdust is directed to the perimeter of portions 5 and 19 of the combustion chamber; see col. 7, ll. 30-55); a plurality (at least three are shown in annotated figure below) of plenum tubes 14 extending from the conical plenum and oriented tangentially to a radius of the combustion chamber (the plenum tubes 14 are directed tangentially from outer wall of tower 13 and thus also tangentially to a corresponding radius; this is similar to the plenum tubes 81 in applicant fig. 4), the plurality of plenum tubes being configured to lift and suspend the solid organic material and induce a cyclonic flow within the combustion chamber (see col. 7, ll. 40-43: “hot gases exiting from the … [plenum tubes] 14 causes the sawdust particles to spin with a high velocity”; also see exit 11 in fig. 2 such that the combusting fuel is directed upward via the cyclonic spinning; also, sawdust exiting chute 17 either goes into annulus 19 {“sawdust particles … spin … inside the annulus 19”, col. 7, ll. 42-43}, is suspended at funnel 5 {“momentum of hot gases exiting the annulus 19 prevent excess sawdust from entering the annulus”, col. 7, ll. 45-47}, or travels upwards without combusting to exit 11 {“unburned particles of wood … [exit] the burner 100”, col. 8, ll. 44-45}); and an air (ignition air; see col. 6, ll. 60-65) flows into the combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) only through the plurality of plenum tubes 14.
Boswell does not disclose a pressure vessel; the combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) disposed within the pressure vessel; wherein the combustion chamber and the pressure vessel are arranged to define a space therebetween; and a port fluidly coupled between an air source and the space, wherein during operation, pressurized air flows from the air source through the port and into the space such that the pressurized air flows through the pressure vessel and around and external to the combustion chamber.
PNG
media_image3.png
132
100
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (conical plenum, i.e., upper portion 16 of tower 13; the term conical can be interpreted as “Of, relating to, or shaped like a cone” (American Heritage Dictionary online); in this case the instant plenum resembles or is related to a cone)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (expanded portion of Boswell fig. 2)]
Rizzie teaches (see fig. 4) a combustion system 14 for solid organic material (see wood and biomass in abstract; this is consistent with applicant par. 51) and further teaches a pressure vessel (66; pressure vessel 66 is .5 inches thick and thus is capable of withstanding pressure variants on the inner and outer surfaces of the vessel; pressure vessel can be interpreted as “a container (as a tank, boiler, shell, cylinder) subjected in use to disruptive pressure”, Merriam-Webster online); a combustion chamber (at 122 in fig. 4 including combustor liner 68) disposed within the pressure vessel; wherein the combustion chamber and the pressure vessel are arranged to define a space 72 therebetween; and a port 95 fluidly coupled between an air source 25 (the air can originate from a compressor 21 as shown in fig. 1; see col. 5, ll. 45-50) and the space, wherein during operation, pressurized air 129 (from compressor 21) flows (see fig. 1) from the air source through the port 95 and into the space 72 such the pressurized air (from compressor 21 in fig. 1) flows through the pressure vessel 66 and around (see fig. 4) and external (see fig. 4) to the combustion chamber (at 122 in fig. 4 including combustor liner 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Boswell with a pressure vessel; the combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) disposed within the pressure vessel; wherein the combustion chamber and the pressure vessel are arranged to define a space therebetween; and a port fluidly coupled between an air source and the space, wherein during operation, pressurized air flows from the air source through the port and into the space such that the pressurized air flows through the pressure vessel and around and external to the combustion chamber as taught by Rizzie in order to facilitate economical use of combustor liner and pressure vessel materials. For example, Rizzie points out that high performance combustor liner 68 alloys INCONEL 625 (0.125” thick) can be thinner and thus less expensive because they don’t have to withstand pressure variants that require the thicker .5” carbon steel of the pressure vessel 66 (see col. 5, ll. 55-60 and col. 6, ll. 33-37). Also the flowing air can remove heat that also provides a less stringent environment and thus improves durability of parts. The teachings of Rizzie permit the combustion chamber of Boswell to be used with a cyclone (see cyclone 16 of Rizzie in fig. 4) and thus the cleaned combustion gasses may be used to power a gas turbine to produce electricity (such as gas turbine 18 of Rizzie with electrical generator 17) or be used with an incinerator (such as discussed by Boswell at col. 1, ll. 8-9, and also discussed by Rizzie at col. 3, ll. 1-5). Thus, regarding the combination, cleaned combustion gas exiting cyclone 16 at duct 110 could go to an incinerator or a combustion engine as pointed out by Rizzie at col. 3, ll. 1-5.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell in view of Rizzie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2022/0025813 A1 (Stenz).
Regarding claim 2, Boswell in view of Rizzie teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches by way of Rizzie a particle separator vessel 94 (vessel 94 surrounds particle separator 16 also referred to as cyclone 16, see col. 6, ll. 50-55) fluidly coupled to receive air flow from the space (annulus 96 in fig. 4 receives air flow from space 72 via passage at location 90). The combination does not explicitly teach vessel 94 is a pressure vessel.
As discussed in the claim 1 analysis above, Rizzie teaches a pressure vessel 16 surrounding the combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) of Boswell (i.e., surrounding the combustion chamber liner at 100 in fig. 2 of Boswell) of the combination. Stenz goes on to teach in fig. 2(a) a pressure vessel is suitable for both a combustion chamber (chamber surrounded by combustor 118) and a particle separator 226 (Stenz teaches the outer housing of assembly 190 is a pressure vessel; the outer housing being at locations 118 and 119 in fig. 2(a) and surrounding the instant combustion chamber and particle separator; see par. 81, top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Boswell in view of Rizzie with vessel 94 is a pressure vessel as taught by Rizzie and Stenz in order to facilitate relieving the cyclone liner (i.e., liner 96 in Rizzie fig. 4 of the combination) of external air pressure (one of ordinary skill is knowledgeable of this; see pertinent prior art on page 13 of the office action mailed 04/09/2025 in italics). This results vessel 94 being a pressure vessel.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell in view of Rizzie and Stenz as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of NPL “Particle separation with the concept of uniflow cyclone” (Oh).
Regarding claim 3, Boswell in view of Rizzie and Stenz teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches a cyclone 16 (see fig. 4 of Rizzie) fluidly coupled (see fluid coupling at 125 in fig. 4) to receive combustion gases from the combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) (see fig. 2 of Boswell). The combination does not teach the cyclone is a uni-flow cyclone.
Oh teaches a uni-flow cyclone (see fig. 4; Oh teaches in Table 1 there are several types of cyclones and further teaches uni-flow cyclones may increase performance at page 501, left, bottom). It is further noted 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., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the cyclone of the combination for a uni-flow cyclone as taught by Oh for the purpose of substitution of one known element for another to yield the predictable result of separating particulate matter from the combustion gas of the combination and to improve performance.
Regarding claim 4, Boswell in view of Rizzie, Stenz and Oh teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches a first insulation layer disposed about the combustion chamber (combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) in Boswell fig. 2 includes a refractory lining; see col. 4, ll. 55-60).
Regarding claim 15, Boswell in view of Rizzie and Stenz teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Rizzie applied above include (see fig. 4) wherein the airflow flows through the particle separator pressure vessel (outer shell 94 of Boswell as modified by Stenz in the claim 2 analysis above) and around (see air 129 in annulus 98 that extends upward around a uni-flow cyclone particle separator 16; see figs. 1 and 4). Boswell does not disclose the particle separator is a uni-flow cyclone. Oh teaches a uni-flow cyclone (see fig. 4; Oh teaches in Table 1 there are several types of cyclones and further teaches uni-flow cyclones may increase performance at page 501, left, bottom). It is further noted 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., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the cyclone of the combination for a uni-flow cyclone as taught by Oh for the purpose of substitution of one known element for another to yield the predictable result of separating particulate matter from the combustion gas of the combination and to improve performance.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell in view of Rizzie, Stenz and Oh as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,715,764 (Lyngfelt).
Regarding claim 5, Boswell in view of Rizzie, Stenz and Oh teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination does not reasonably teach a second insulation layer about the uni-flow cyclone.
Lyngfelt teaches a combustion system (see col. 11, l. 57) and further teaches an insulation layer (refractory lining, see col. 11, l. 67) about the cyclone 4 (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Boswell in view of Rizzie, Stenz and Oh with a second insulation layer about the uni-flow cyclone as taught by Lyngfelt in order to facilitate protecting cyclone of the combination from high temperature combusted gas.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell in view of Rizzie, Stenz, Oh and Lyngfelt as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US Patent US 3,006,782 (Wheildon).
Regarding claim 6, Boswell in view of Rizzie, Stenz, Oh and Lyngfelt teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the first insulation layer (combustion chamber (at locations 5 and 9 in fig. 2) in Boswell fig. 2 includes a refractory lining; see col. 4, ll. 55-60) and the second insulation layer (refractory lining about cyclone, see col. 11, l. 67 of Lyngfelt) are a refractor. The combination does not teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above refractories are spray refractories.
Wheildon teaches a combustion system (see col. 1, ll. 45-48) and further teaches a spray refractory (see col. 1, ll. 25-30; such refractories are beneficial for ease of manufacture and durability for example; see col. 1, ll. 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Boswell in view of Rizzie, Stenz, Oh and Lyngfelt with the refractories are spray refractories as taught by Wheildon in order to facilitate for ease of manufacture and durability (see col. 1, ll. 35-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, applicant argues against combining Rizzie with Boswell because Rizzie teaches slots 70 to admit air into the combustion chamber of Rizzie. Such slots 70 provide the proper air to be admitted to the combustion chamber of Rizzie (see Rizzie col. 8, ll. 45-55). Regarding Boswell the correct amount of combustion air is provided by the tuyeres 7 (see col. 8, ll. 25-30) and thus the slots of Rizzie would not be required. Rizzie pipe 25 in fig. 4 and Stenz pipes 212 and 213 in fig. 2a are evidence that Boswell’s tuyeres may extend through the pressure vessel of Boswell in view of Rizzie.
Applicant further argues that “Rizzie fails to disclose "air flows through the pressure vessel and around and external to the combustion chamber." In response Rizzie teaches air 129 flows through pressure vessel 66 and around (see annular space 72) and external (see annular space 72) to the combustion chamber (at 122). Such air 129 flows in annular space and that air that does not enter the combustion chamber via slots 70 travels to the top of the pressure vessel as shown by horizontal air flow arrow at the upper portion of the pressure vessel in fig. 4.
Applicant argues that Rizzie teaches away from combining Rizzie with Boswell. In response Rizzie does not teach away from including the claim 1 pressure vessel with Boswell because the Rizzie disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (MPEP 2145).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights