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. Summary This is a non-final office action for application 17/915,639 filed on 03 March 2023. Claims 1-17 are currently pending in this application. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 is indefinite because the terms “the diffusion burner” and “the swirl burner” do not have sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this claim is being interpreted as “… a feed line for a burner that is configured as a main burner”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchner ( US- 20170314778-A1) in view of Berenbrink (US-6632084-B2) and Ambrosius ( EP - 2092976 - B1 ). Regarding Claim 1 , Buchner discloses a reactor system (pulsating reactor; see [0018]) for the production or treatment (thermal treatment ; see [0018]) of particles (different degrees of particle or droplet loading; see [0018]) in an oscillating process gas stream (raw material is added to the pulsating hot gas with different mass flows; see [0018] and “oscillation of a hot gas flow in the reactor”; see Abstract) , comprising: a reactor unit (pulsed combustion reactor; see [0041]) that has an upstream feed unit (raw material that is to be treated can be introduced; see [0002]) and a downstream discharge unit (raw material that is to be treated can be… discharged; see [0002]) , wherein the reactor unit has a reactor that comprises a burner system (at least one burner; see [0002]) that has a combustion chamber (combustion chamber; see [0002]) , an exhaust gas pipe that follows downstream from the combustion chambe r (exhaust gas stream… from the combustion chamber; see [0004]) , wherein a part of the burner is suitable for production of the oscillating process gas stream (burner for generating a pulsating flame for generating a pulsating hot gas flow; see [0035]) , and wherein the burner is arranged in the combustion chamber of the reactor unit (the flame 12 burns… into a combustion chamber; see [0060]) , and wherein the feed unit has a channel system that has channel ducts (burner 1 to which are supplied either fuel and combustion air separately 2, or a premixed fuel/air mixture 2 via at least one line; see [0052]) , and wherein each burner has a channel duct for the fuel/combustion gas mixture configured as a feed line and/or a channel duct for fuel configured as a feed line and a channel duct for combustion gas, configured as a feed line of the burner system suitable for the production of the oscillating process gas stream (burner 1 to which are supplied either fuel and combustion air separately 2, or a premixed fuel/air mixture 2 via at least one line; see [0052]). Buchner does not explicitly teach a m ultiple burner system . However, Berenbrink discloses a burner system with a plurality of burners (burner configuration with primary and secondary pilot burners; see Abstract). Buchner and Berenbrink are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of combustion chambers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invetione to have modified Buchner by incorporating the teachings of Berenbrink and using a multiple burner system. Doing so would increase stabilization of the combustion and help avoid firing installation rumble (see Berenbrink Col. 2 Lines 2-4). Buchner also does not explicitly teach a volume stream regulation device . However, Ambrosius discloses a volume stream regulation device on burner feed lines ( inlet side with one or more aero valves for the entry of combustion gas mixtures ; see [0011]). Buchner and Ambrosius are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pulsation reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a volume regulation device. Doing so would enable control of fuel supply (see Ambrosius [0059]) Regarding Claim 2 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Buchner further discloses wherein the burners are selected from the group of ignition burners, pilot burners, ring burners, diffusion burners (quick-mixing diffusion flame…nozzle-mixing flame in which the fuel and combustion air are brought together only within the burner, and preferably at the burner outlet; see [0048]) , and swirl burners ( swirl burner; see [0035]). Regarding Claim 3 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Buchner further discloses wherein the part of the burners of the multiple burner system suitable for the production of the oscillating process gas stream is configured as a diffusion burner (quick-mixing diffusion flame…nozzle-mixing flame in which the fuel and combustion air are brought together only within the burner, and preferably at the burner outlet; see [0048]) or as a swirl burner (swirl burner; see [0035]). Regarding Claim 4 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Buchner further discloses the burners being suitable for burning liquid (fuel is to be understood for example as… liquid fuels; see [0053]) and gaseous fuel (furl is understood for example as fuel gases; see [0053]). Under BRI, the swirl burner disclosed by Buchner is suitable for burning liquid, gaseous, and solid fuels. Although Buchner expressly identifies gaseous and liquid fuels as examples, swirl burners are known in the art to be capable of combusting solid fuels, and the reference does not exclude or preclude such use. Accordingly, the reference reads on the claimed burner suitability. Regarding Claim 5 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Buchner does not explicitly teach concentric arrangement. However, Berenbrink discloses burners of a multiple burner system arranged concentrically to one another (secondary pilot burner to be formed by a peripheral annular duct in the outlet region of the main burner; see Col. 2 Lines 45-47). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable the burner configuration to be operated in very varied modes of operation using different fuels (see Berenbrink , Col. 4 Lines 56-58). Regarding Claim 6 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Ambrosius further discloses wherein the volume stream regulation device is configured as a sliding gate valve, regulating valve ( This process of closing and opening the valves by means of pressure and vacuum takes place periodically in a self-regulating manner ; see [0011] ) , regulating cock or an iris shutter that can be regulated. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it can enable a self-regulating system (see Ambrosius [0011] and [0013]) . Regarding Claim 7 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. The limitation claiming that the volume stream regulation device claimed in claim 1 “has a regulation precision of less than or equal to 3%” is a matter of routine optimization that does not present any new or unexpected results. The instant specification states that, “ a great regulation precision is necessary so as to minimize or prevent feedback to the process gas volume stream caused by the resonance oscillation ”, but does not present any criticality associated with the value of less than or equal to 3%. Furthermore, Ambrosius discloses that precise operation of the burner system is important for establishment of continuous pressure fluctuations and can be accomplished through variation of combustion parameters known to people skilled in the art (see [0034]). Ambrosius also discloses that controlling the fuel supply through valves is one way to accomplish this (see [0037]). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately size the control valve to accomplish a certain precision as a matter of routine optimization. The courts have stated 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.” In reAller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding Claim 8 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Ambrosius further discloses wherein the feed unit has a pressure regulation device ( The combustion chamber is equipped on the inlet side with one or more aero valves for the entry of combustion gas mixtures ; see [0011]) and the discharge unit has a pressure regulation device (combustion chamber which has at least one opening on the outlet side for the hot gas formed. The opening can have valves which can be regulated or regulated in a self-regulating manner; see [0037]), so that the static pressure in the reactor system can be regulated ( The fuel and the necessary combustion air pass via the valves into the combustion chamber and are ignited there, combust very rapidly and generate a pressure wave in the direction of the resonant pipe, since the combustion gas inlet is largely closed by the aerodynamic valves in the event of overpressure. As a result of hot gas flowing out into the resonance pipe as a result of the combustion, the overpressure in the combustion chamber is reduced, so that new combustible gas mixture flows in through the valves and self-ignites. This process of closing and opening the valves by means of pressure and vacuum takes place periodically in a self-regulating manner ; see [0011]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it enables pressure control (see Ambrosius [0011]), and regulating the static pressure, or the pulse amplitude, is what causes pulsation/transient operation of the reactor (see Buchner [0019]). Further, the limitation claiming, “ so that the static pressure in the reactor system can be regulated” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley , 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb , Inc. , 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). T he manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Regarding Claim 9 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. The limitation claiming, “the reactor unit has multiple reactors that have a multiple burner system” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an engineering design choice. The instant specification states, “ By means of the multiple reactors, the production and treatment processes can be scaled, so that clearly larger amounts of the particles can be produced or treated in a reactor system ”. The courts have held that “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. Regarding Claim 10 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Ambrosius further discloses wherein the feed unit has a pressure loss production device ( The combustion chamber is equipped on the inlet side with one or more aero valves for the entry of combustion gas mixtures ; see [0011]) and the discharge unit has a pressure loss production device (combustion chamber which has at least one opening on the outlet side for the hot gas formed. The opening can have valves which can be regulated or regulated in a self-regulating manner; see [0037]). The limitation claiming, “that produces a pressure loss” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley , 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb , Inc. , 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). T he manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. It is undeniable that regulation valves are fully capable of pressure reduction. Regarding Claim 11 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 10. Ambrosius further discloses the pressure loss production devices being configured ( The periodic combustion instabilities necessary for the method can, on the other hand, be divided into two basic categories. On the one hand, this is caused by the positively excited instabilities in which the periodic disturbances in the combustion system are imposed by engagement from the outside, for example by the periodic response of control valves ; see [0023]) in such a manner that a resonance state that can be produced in the reactor system can be set ( the periodic pressure oscillation of the burner flame is adjusted by adjusting burner parameters, such as the total gas quantity, the quantity and/or type of the various concentric gas streams, swirl angles, with a variably adjustable oscillation frequency in the range from 5 Hz to 150 Hz and with a pressure amplitude in the range from 5 mbar to 50 mbar ; see [0020]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because a resonance state, or combustion instabilities, are necessary for the oscillatory operation of the reactor (see Ambrosius [0023]). Regarding Claim 12 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Berenbrink further discloses wherein a divider device is arranged upstream from the combustion chamber of the reactor unit (annular duct is subdivided; see Col. 2 Lines 55-56) , wherein the divider device divides a channel duct configured as a feed line (A fuel supply line and a secondary pilot burner having a peripheral annular duct; see Col. 2 Lines 13-14) , so that multiple burners can be supplied by means of the feed line ( main burner fuel supply line… primary pilot burner having a primary pilot burner supply line… secondary pilot burner fuel supply line; see Claim 1) . This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable pressure in a supply duct to remain approximately constant; see Berenbrink Col. 5, Lines 9-11). Regarding Claim 13 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. Buchner further discloses wherein the feed unit has a pulsation device (pulsating fuel/air mixture flowing into the pulsating flame; see [0036]). Regarding Claim 14 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 13. Buchner further discloses wherein the pulsation device is arranged in a channel duct configured as a feed line to a burner ( pulsating fuel/air mixture flowing into the pulsating flame; see [0036]; the pulsation of the fuel/air mixture that is flowing into a flame, which is the feed, indicates the existence of a pulsation device in the feed line). Berenbrink further discloses the concept of a main burner, as exemplified in the claim 12 rejection. Inclusion of a main burner would be obvi ous to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it can enable varied modes of operation (see Berenbrink , Col. 4 Lines 56-58). Regarding Claim 15 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. The limitation claiming that the volume stream regulation device claimed in claim 1 “has a regulation precision of less than or equal to 2%” is a matter of routine optimization that does not present any new or unexpected results. The instant specification states that, “ a great regulation precision is necessary so as to minimize or prevent feedback to the process gas volume stream caused by the resonance oscillation ”, but does not present any criticality associated with the value of less than or equal to 2%. Furthermore, Ambrosius discloses that precise operation of the burner system is important for establishment of continuous pressure fluctuations and can be accomplished through variation of combustion parameters known to people skilled in the art (see [0034]). Ambrosius also discloses that controlling the fuel supply through valves is one way to accomplish this (see [0037]). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately size the control valve to accomplish a certain precision as a matter of routine optimization. The courts have stated 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.” In reAller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding Claim 16 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. The limitation claiming that the volume stream regulation device claimed in claim 1 “has a regulation precision of less than or equal to 1%” is a matter of routine optimization that does not present any new or unexpected results. The instant specification states that, “ a great regulation precision is necessary so as to minimize or prevent feedback to the process gas volume stream caused by the resonance oscillation ”, but does not present any criticality associated with the value of less than or equal to 1%. Furthermore, Ambrosius discloses that precise operation of the burner system is important for establishment of continuous pressure fluctuations and can be accomplished through variation of combustion parameters known to people skilled in the art (see [0034]). Ambrosius also discloses that controlling the fuel supply through valves is one way to accomplish this (see [0037]). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately size the control valve to accomplish a certain precision as a matter of routine optimization. The courts have stated 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.” In reAller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding Claim 17 , Buchner, Berenbrink , and Ambrosius together disclose the reactor system according to claim 1. The limitation claiming that the volume stream regulation device claimed in claim 1 “has a regulation precision of less than or equal to 0.5%” is a matter of routine optimization that does not present any new or unexpected results. The instant specification states that, “ a great regulation precision is necessary so as to minimize or prevent feedback to the process gas volume stream caused by the resonance oscillation ”, but does not present any criticality associated with the value of less than or equal to 0.5%. Furthermore, Ambrosius discloses that precise operation of the burner system is important for establishment of continuous pressure fluctuations and can be accomplished through variation of combustion parameters known to people skilled in the art (see [0034]). Ambrosius also discloses that controlling the fuel supply through valves is one way to accomplish this (see [0037]). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately size the control valve to accomplish a certain precision as a matter of routine optimization. The courts have stated 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.” In reAller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3806 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1051 . 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. /A.L.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1774 /CLAIRE X WANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774