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 filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the cited art does not teach the newly added limitations, the examiner disagrees. Sobotka is relied upon to teach the newly added limitations of claims 5 and 22 in the present action. Likewise, Beck (previously included in the cited but not relied upon section at the end of the previous action) is further relied upon for teaching the limitations of new claim 21.
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 5, 6, 9-14, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Parker (US 3769959 A), hereinafter Parker, and further in view of Sobotka (US 5596979 A), hereinafter Sobotka.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 22, Lu discloses a system configured to be installed into a radiant tube for reduction of pollutants (“NOx reduction apparatus associated with a plurality of combustor tubes forming a portion of its heat exchanger structure” abstract), the system comprising:
a body having a tube shape including a length, a width, an outer diameter, and an inner diameter, wherein the body further comprises a proximal surface, a terminal surface, and a circumferential surface extending between the proximal surface and terminal surface (“an elongated open-ended tubular metal mesh member 74” column 5, line 32);
a positioning device configured to engage the body (“The assembled structure 10 is then inserted, support member body end 80 first, into the inlet end 36 of its associated combustor tube 34” column 5, line 54);
wherein the positioning device comprises a proximal end and a terminal end and a first cross bar between the proximal end and the terminal end configured to engage the body (“Support plate member 72 has an elongated body portion 76 with an elongated transverse stiffening rib 78 formed along a lower side edge portion thereof, a downturned inner end portion 80, and an upturned outer end portion 82” column 5, line 34) .
PNG
media_image1.png
256
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
198
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
272
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lu does not disclose:
wherein the positioning device is configured to adjust an axial distance between the body and a combustion source, wherein the positioning device is configured to adjust the body between a first position and a second position along an axial length of the radiant tube;
wherein the positioning device comprises a second cross bar;
wherein the body consists of a single monolithic body;
wherein the body consists essentially of silicon carbide.
However, Parker teaches wherein the positioning device is configured to adjust an axial distance between the body and a combustion source, wherein the positioning device is configured to adjust the body between a first position and a second position along an axial length of the radiant tube (“A handle 14 is attached to or forms a part of the baffle 13. The handle is at the gage end of the tube. The handle can be calibrated so as to regulate the distance between the opening of the tube and the first tab or projection 15 of the baffle” column 2, line 44).
PNG
media_image4.png
366
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Parker’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 positioning device is configured to adjust an axial distance between the body and a combustion source, wherein the positioning device is configured to adjust the body between a first position and a second position along an axial length of the radiant tube as is taught in Parker, in the system disclosed by Lu because the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the axial adjustability of the body. Parker shows that adjustability is needed. Thus, limitations regarding adjustability are not a patentable advance.
Lu, as modified by Parker, does not disclose:
wherein the positioning device comprises a second cross bar;
wherein the body consists of a single monolithic body;
wherein the body consists essentially of silicon carbide.
However, Sobotka teaches:
wherein the body consists of a single monolithic body (“a single baffle recessed in said heat exchanger in facing relationship with said burner so as to be within said flame” claim 1);
wherein the body consists essentially of silicon carbide (“Baffle 10, in a preferred embodiment, is 2.125 inches in diameter and 8.5 inches long and made of high temperature ceramic foam such as a silicon carbide type foam” column 2, line 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
222
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Sobotka’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 *** as is taught in Sobotka, in the system disclosed by Lu because the court has held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In this case, the single piece construction of Sobotka would be a matter of obvious engineering choice over the prior art Lu. Furthermore, 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 Sobotka teaches silicon carbide is a “high temperature” material. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the body of Sobotka from silicon carbide.
Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, does not disclose wherein the positioning device comprises a second cross bar. However, the court has held 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, the difference between the claims and the cited art is the provision of a second cross bar. Duplicating the cross bar would provide the expectable result of additional points of engagement. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would duplicate the cross bar of Lu as modified.
Regarding claim 6, Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the positioning device comprises a first positioning element and a second positioning element, wherein the first positioning element comprises a terminal end including an engagement structure configured to engage the body, and wherein the second positioning element comprises a terminal end including an engagement structure configured to engage the body (“Support plate member 72 has an elongated body portion 76 with an elongated transverse stiffening rib 78 formed along a lower side edge portion thereof, a downturned inner end portion 80, and an upturned outer end portion 82” column 5, line 34).
Regarding claim 9, Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the terminal end of the positioning device terminates outside of the radiant tube (82 terminates outside of the radiant tube. Additionally, Parker teaches an extended handle for positioning which extends outside of the radiant tube).
Regarding claim 10, Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, discloses the system of claim 9 wherein the terminal end of the positioning device is accessible to an outside user (82 is accessible to an outside user. Additionally, Parker teaches an extended handle for positioning which extends outside of the radiant tube).
Regarding claims 12-14, Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, discloses the system of claim 11.
Lu, as modified by Parker, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first position is at least 0.01 cm and not greater than 100 cm from the combustion source, wherein the second position is at least 0.02 cm and not greater than 100 cm from the combustion source, or wherein the first position and the second position are spaced at least 0.01 cm and not greater than 100 cm away from one another (The examiner notes that the applications of Lu and Parker suggest that the distances would be well within the claimed ranges). 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, Lu discloses a distance between the body and burner, but does not specifically recite a minimum or maximum. Likewise, Parker teaches axially adjusting the position of the baffle, but does not disclose minimum or maximum adjustments. Achieving minimum and maximum positions/adjustment is a results-effective variable because if the body is too close to the burner it could prevent proper flame development, and if the body is too far from the burner it will only interact with the downstream products of combustion as if the body were not present. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify positions/adjustment, because the selection of position/adjustment to achieve proper flame development and reduced emissions constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, discloses the system of claim 11, wherein at least one portion of the positioning device is configured to be adapted between a first position and a second position without changing a state of the combustion source (The handle 14 taught by Parker would be accessible by a user at a safe distance at least by auxiliary tool such as pliers).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Parker, in view of Sobotka, and further in view of Beck (US 3887004 A), hereinafter Beck.
Regarding claim 21, Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, discloses the system of claim 5.
Lu, as modified by Parker and Sobotka, does not disclose wherein the single monolithic body comprises a single axial opening extending the length of the body and a solid side wall surrounding the axial opening for the length of the body.
However, Beck teaches wherein the single monolithic body comprises a single axial opening extending the length of the body and a solid side wall surrounding the axial opening for the length of the body (“If there is an unlimited flow of fluid available, then the maximum heat exchange capacity of a tubular heat exchange unit 12 will be achieved by having the center of core body 24 open and passing fluid through both the flow channels 36 and the center of core body 24” column 7, line 54).
PNG
media_image6.png
364
424
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Beck’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 single monolithic body comprises a single axial opening extending the length of the body and a solid side wall surrounding the axial opening for the length of the body as is taught in Beck, in the system disclosed by Lu because Beck states that the axial opening can be used to achieve maximum heat exchange. Therefore, including the axial opening of Beck will improve heat exchange in Lu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Prentice (US 1242473 A) “a tool 11 adapted to be inserted into an opening in the end of the core to effect its removal from the tube”
PNG
media_image7.png
114
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Faunce (US 2445471 A) “a wire 19 passes through one cap and is provided with a hook 20 to enter a hole 21 in a deflector 8 so that, when one cap is removed the deflector 8 can be withdrawn into the tube”
PNG
media_image8.png
112
586
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Brinen (US 2677394 A) “permits a tool to be inserted through the aperture 11' when the agitator strip is to be removed from its tube”
PNG
media_image9.png
308
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Smick (US 4044796 A) “the improved turbulator 12 preferably includes a handle portion 22 which extends out of the end of the fire tube 10. When it is desired to remove the turbulator 12 from the fire tube it is only necessary to pull the handle 22”
PNG
media_image10.png
178
764
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Stout (US 2641206 A)
PNG
media_image11.png
324
462
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Roussange (FR 2469654 A1) “The screen mounted on its arm can be adjusted in height and the distance between the axis of the burner flame and said screen is also adjustable, said arm being able to be telescopic on its base”
PNG
media_image12.png
420
504
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Valliant Shoenwelle (NL 9101168 A) “A further favorable dimensioning is obtained if the ratio of the length of the front of the plates to the distance of the bottom of the plates from the upper mantle line of the burner tube is in the range of 0.25 to 16”
PNG
media_image13.png
464
300
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Diesch (US 5094224 A) “Inlet turbulator insert 64 is adapted to fit within inlet 52 for mixing combustion gases and quenching the flame to minimize NO.sub.x emissions”
Grahl (US 5146910 A) “Elongated metal devices are coaxially inserted into, and closely received within, inlet end portions of the heat exchanger combustor tubes of a fuel-fired heating appliance, representatively a forced air heating furnace. The inserted devices function to substantially reduce the NO.sub.x content of the combustion gases ultimately discharged from the furnace by intercepting, dispersing, and thermally quenching the burner flames drawn through the combustor tubes by a draft inducer fan portion of the furnace”
Franck (FR 2710727 A1) “Among these combustion products, the emission of which should be able to be controlled, one can be called by the generic qualification of nitrogen oxide or NOX which is more particularly produced by the contact between the oxidizing zone of the flame and the direct environment more or less charged with oxygen even in the confinement of the flame”
PNG
media_image14.png
244
790
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
276
274
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Koljonen (US 20100279236 A1) “fastening elements, such as the supporting rings 4 and the supporting pipe 3, preferably comprise elements for adjusting the flame intensifier 5 in the longitudinal direction”
PNG
media_image16.png
228
432
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
252
474
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Riepenhoff (US 6485294 B2) “The effectiveness of NOx reduction device 31 has been determined through empirical testing, which has consistently shown NOx emissions below the 40 ng/J threshold in furnaces in which device 31 is used”
PNG
media_image18.png
332
480
media_image18.png
Greyscale
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 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 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights