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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fuel charging apparatus” in claim 1. The specification on page 3 further describes the “fuel charging apparatus” as “tubular or formed as a radial bulge on the riser pipe of the calciner. Preferably, the fuel charging apparatus opens out into the riser pipe of the calciner so that fuel and/or inert gas are fed into the riser pipe of the calciner via the fuel charging apparatus. The fuel charging apparatus is a thermal treatment chamber that is used for heating and controlled addition of fuel into the riser”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17, 20 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panier (US 20170267582 A1) in view of Hansen (US 5816795 A) and Penfornis (US 20090130615 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Panier teaches of:
A cement production plant (Fig. 1) comprising:
a preheater configured to preheat raw meal (Fig. 1, 32+33);
a calciner (10) configured to calcine the raw meal that has been preheated (10 receives preheated raw meal grom 32+33);
wherein the calciner has a raw meal inlet (14+15) for the raw meal that has been preheated (14+15 receive raw meal that has been preheated in 32+33)
a furnace (calcined raw meal from 10 is transported to a furnace via 21; ; ¶ [0101], “From separation cyclone 20, the separated calcined meal 21 is typically transported to a rotary clinkerization kiln (not represented) for the production of clinker”) with a furnace burner configured to fire the raw meal to form cement clinker (the furnace must have a furnace burner as combustion takes place in the furnace to from clinkers; ¶ [0101], “rotary clinkerization kiln (not represented) for the production of clinker. In the case of partial oxy-firing, combustion takes place in the rotary kiln”), wherein the furnace has a combustion gas inlet configured to admit a combustion gas (there must be a combustion gas inlet in the furnace in order for combustion to take place); and
a cooler configured to cool the cement clinker (¶ [0074], “combustion takes place in the kiln with a kiln oxidant having an oxygen content of less than 30% vol, such as air and in particular air coming from a clinker cooler.”);
wherein the furnace has a fuel inlet configured to admit fuel into the furnace (there must be a fuel inlet for the furnace in order for combustion to take place in the furnace)
wherein the calciner includes a riser (see vertical sides of 10 the make up the riser) and a fuel charging apparatuses that each that includes a fuel inlet (13, ¶ [0093], “calciner 10 thus has only a single fuel inlet level, i.e. the lowermost inlet level L13”)
Panier fails to explicitly teach:
with an oxygen content of 30% to 100% into the furnace
wherein the furnace has an inert gas inlet for admitting inert gas into the furnace
wherein the calciner includes a plurality of fuel charging apparatuses that each include a respective fuel inlet and a respective inert gas inlet;
wherein the raw meal inlet is located between two fuel charging apparatuses
wherein the fuel charging apparatuses are arranged angularly offset from each other about a cross-section of the riser at an angle between 60° and 270°.
However, it would have been obvious to modify Panier to have a plurality of fuel charging apparatuses each including respective fuel inlets and to further position the additional fuel charging apparatus above raw meal inlet 14 based on the following rationale:
It would have been “obvious to try” to modify the device of Panier to have an additional fuel charging apparatus positioned above raw meal inlet 14 for the following reasons:
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention there is a recognized problem in the art to reduce NOx formation in a calciner by supplying fuel and oxidant into a calciner in order to have complete combustion of the exhaust gasses therein
Fuel and oxidant can be introduced in the calciner at a first level and at a level above the first level, where the level above the first level can either be above or below the raw meal inlet 14
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the device of Panier to position the additional fuel charging apparatus above the first fuel charging apparatus and above the raw meal inlet 14 with a reasonable expectation of success in that it would calcine the raw meal entering the calciner
Further, Panier discloses that there can be multiple fuel charging apparatus at different longitudinal positions along the calciner above the lowermost fuel charging apparatus (¶ [0078], “optionally one or more second fuel inlet levels located above the lowermost fuel inlet level in the longitudinal direction, whereby one or more further fuel inlets, referred to as “second fuel inlets” are located at each second fuel inlet level present.”)
Further, it would have been obvious to modify Panier as modified to rearrange the fuel charging apparatuses so that they are arranged angularly offset from each other about a cross-section of the riser at an angle between 60° and 270° based on the following rationale:
It has been found that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Panier as modified would not operate differently with the claimed angular offset of the fuel chargers since the fuel would still be supplied to the calciner as needed to ensure combustion and further applicant has placed no criticality on the range claimed.
Panier further teaches of:
with an oxygen content of 30% to 100% into the furnace (¶ [0075], “According to an alternative embodiment combustion takes place in the kiln with a kiln oxidant having an oxygen content of between 30% vol and 100% vol, preferably of at least 50% vol and more preferably of at least 88% vol”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the amount of oxygen entering the furnace of Panier to have an oxygen content of 88%
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it is listed as an optional embodiment of the device of Panier
Hansen teaches of:
The fuel charging apparatus being a tubular opening into the calciner (Fig. 1, 10 is the fuel charging apparatus that opens into the riser duct 12 of the calciner)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Replace the fuel charging apparatuses of Panier with the fuel charging apparatus of Hansen
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would allow for the fuel to held suspended in the gas stream of the riser duct creating fuel savings (Hansen, Col. 2, lines 1-4, “One development directed at realizing substantial fuel savings was the construction and use of precalciner kilns in which the finely divided raw material is suspended with burning fuel with high heat transfer efficiency”)
Penfornis teaches of:
wherein the furnace has an inert gas inlet for respectively admitting inert gas into the calciner and the furnace (Fig. 1, see burner 1a surrounded by inert gas lances 2 with inert gas inlets 2a)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the primary reference so the burner in the furnace is surrounded by at least 2 inert gas lances which have inert gas inlets so that the furnace has an inert gas inlet
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would allow for the size of the flame to be controlled resulting in greater thermal energy absorption in the second combustion zone, reducing the temperature of the flames in the second combustion zone and therefore reducing NOx formation (Penfornis, ¶ [0020], “The boundary between the first and second combustion zones is set at the point where the flame temperature exceeds 1500.degree. C., above which temperature the rate of thermal NOx formation significantly increases.”; ¶ [0024], “The injection of at least one flow of at least one inert gas at the point where the second combustion zone starts makes it possible, while maintaining as high a temperature as possible in the first combustion zone, to absorb thermal energy released during the combustion of the fuel with the secondary air in the second combustion zone. Thus, the flame temperature drops in the second combustion zone.”)
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach of the cement production plant of claim 17, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the furnace has multiple inert gas inlets (Penfornis, Fig. 1, there are multiple inert gas inlets formed by 2).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach of the cement production plant of claim 17, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein at least one cross- sectional constriction of a calciner cross section is configured within the calciner (Panier, see cross sectional constriction formed in 10 from its upper end to its bottom end).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings teach of the cement production plant of claim 17, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
comprising a guide element for guiding at least one of gas flow or fuel within the calciner.
However, Penfornis in a further embodiment teaches of:
comprising a guide element for guiding at least one of gas flow or fuel within the calciner (Fig. 3, 4 guides fuel and gas).
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add 4 to the outlet of each of the burners with the calciner and the furnace of the combined teachings
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
adding 4 to each of the burners of the combined teachings allows for more rapid and complete combustion (Penfornis, ¶ [0040], “The flaring of the inner edges of this appendage increases the gas recirculation in the flame at the outlet of the burner. What is thus obtained is more rapid and complete combustion.”)
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings teach of the cement production plant of claim 26, and the combined teachings further teach:
comprising multiple of the guide element (see rejection of claim 26 above, there is a guide element on each of the burners), wherein one of the guide elements is assigned to each fuel charging apparatus (see rejection of claims 17 and 26 above, the burners of the calciner are fuel charging apparatuses as they supply or charge fuel into the calciner where it is subsequently combusted, Penfornis as applied in 17 provided an inert gas inlet for each of the burner of the primary reference, each of the burners or fuel charging apparatuses have a guide element 4 from Penfornis as applied in 26).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panier (US 20170267582 A1) in view Hansen (US 5816795 A) and Penfornis (US 20090130615 A1) as presented in claim 17, and in further view of Periasamy (US 20120304905 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach of the cement production plant of claim 17, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein for the furnace, the fuel inlet and the inert gas inlet together form an inlet.
Periasamy teaches of:
wherein for the furnace, the fuel inlet and the inert gas inlet together form an inlet (¶ [0013], “the carrier gas is industrially pure CO.sub.2.”;Fig. 1, burner 1 has fuel inlet 7 which utilizes pulverized solid fuel conveyed through a carrier gas which is made up of industrially pure CO2 which according to applicant’s specification is an inert gas (see page 6, line 10 of applicant’s specification))
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the burners of the primary reference so that its solid fuel is provided with a carrier gas of industrially pure CO2 so that the fuel and inert gas inlets together form an inlet
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
Panier utilizes solid gas and therefore requires a carrier gas to convey the solid fuel through the fuel charging apparatuses, the use of industrially pure CO2 as the carrier gas allows for variations in the amount of carrier gas provided into the system to not affect the overall oxygen concentration of the combustion air (Periasamy, ¶ [0039], “While the amount of carrier gas may be varied, typically it is driven by the amount of particulate fuel used, so the overall oxygen concentration [O.sub.2].sub.ov or [O.sub.2].sub.om largely depends upon how much recycled flue gas is in the secondary oxidant.”)
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panier (US 20170267582 A1) in view Hansen (US 5816795 A) and Penfornis (US 20090130615 A1) as presented in claim 17, and in further view of Rohloff (WO 2017220457 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach of the cement production plant of claim 17, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
comprising a control device that is connected to a temperature measuring device within the calciner and that is configured to regulate a quantity of at least one of raw meal, inert gas, or fuel in the calciner based on a temperature ascertained by the temperature measuring device.
Rohloff teaches of:
comprising a control device that is connected to a temperature measuring device within the calciner and that is configured to regulate a quantity of at least one of raw meal, inert gas, or fuel in the calciner based on a temperature ascertained by the temperature measuring device (Fig. 2, temperature measuring device 66; ¶ [0021], “a temperature measuring device for determining the temperature within the line is arranged on the line and/or on at least one treatment area for the fuel and/or the preheating device for the raw material, and a control/regulation device is provided which is connected to the temperature measuring device and is designed such that it controls/regulates the supply of raw material and/or the supply of fuels and/or the supply of oxygen-containing combustion air and/or the supply of hot gases into the system as a function of a temperature determined by the temperature measuring device”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add a temperature measuring device to the calciner of the primary reference and further include a control device that is connected to the temperature device and is capable of controlling the supply of raw meal, fuel and combustion air within the combined teachings to control the temperature within the calciner
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would allow for the temperature within the calciner to be controlled in order to prevent damage to the plant (Rohloff, ¶ [0021], “Depending on the temperature inside the line measured by the temperature measuring device, the raw material-hot gas mixture is discharged from the line. This prevents, in particular, damage to the line of the following components of, for example, the cement production plant due to excessive temperatures.”)
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panier (US 20170267582 A1) in view Hansen (US 5816795 A) and Penfornis (US 20090130615 A1) as presented in claim 17, and in further view of Bellwinkel (WO 2005024328 A2).
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings teach of the cement production plant of claim 17, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
comprising a combustion chamber disposed between the furnace and the calciner, the combustion chamber having a raw material inlet, a fuel inlet, and an inert gas inlet.
Bellwinkel teaches of:
comprising a combustion chamber disposed between the furnace and the calciner, the combustion chamber having a raw material inlet, a fuel inlet, and an inert gas inlet (Fig. 1, 1b is an additional combustion zone chamber between the furnace and the calciner)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
include a combustion chamber in between the calciner and the furnace of the primary reference so the combustion chamber is positioned as it is shown in Bellwinkel, further include a burner within the combustion chamber and supply it with fuel and inert gas as described by Penfornis in claim 17 above
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
having an additional combustion chamber between the calciner and the furnace allows for the combustion to occur at the inlet of the furnace in a reducing atmosphere therefore reducing NOx emissions (Bellwinkel, Pg. 2, lines 38-39, “Additional combustion points are provided at the kiln inlet and the connecting line between the combustion chamber and the calciner in order to create a reducing atmosphere in this area”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights