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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10/19/2025 are entered. Additionally, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (WO 03081135 A1; hereinafter Stephens) in view of Poe et al. (US 20070292811 A1; hereinafter Poe), and Perry (US 2596507 A).
Regarding claim 1, Stephens teaches a refractory apparatus (the apparatus shown in FIG. 5), comprising: a refractory block (FIG. 5, floor 14, wall 60, and annular tile 22) comprising a heat shield (FIG. 5, the annular tile 22 forms a heat shield), wherein the refractory block includes a plurality of flue gas ports (FIG. 5, air ports 30, which, according to paragraph 26, are for flue gas recirculation) that acts as a gateway for flue gas produced due to combustion downstream of a burner, wherein a suction created in the burner drives the flue gas into the burner through the plurality of flue gas ports (FIG. 5, gas is drawn in through the ports 30 via suction); and a discharge cone (FIG. 5, the cone shaped opening in the tile 22 surrounding burner tip 20) located in the refractory block for flame stabilization in the burner.
Stephens fails to teach a plurality of staged risers housed within the refractory block, wherein the plurality of staged risers is protected in staged fuel riser housings in the refractory block.
However, Poe teaches a plurality of staged risers housed within the refractory block, wherein the plurality of staged risers is protected in staged fuel riser housings in the refractory block (FIG. 1, the risers 164, which, according to paragraph 114, are staged risers, and which are surrounded by housings in the surrounding material).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Stephens by including staged risers and gas circulation ports, as taught by Poe, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stephens with these aforementioned teachings of Poe with the motivation of creating a more efficient burn.
Stephens and Poe fails to teach that each flue gas port among the plurality of flue gas ports includes a slot having a slot area selected to obtain flue gas up to 20% of combustion air.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the flue gas of Stephens 20% air, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Perry teaches a flue gas mixture with several percent air), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that flue gas composition is a result effective variable because it affects the way that a mixture using flue gas burns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flue gas of Stephens 20% air, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the combination of Stephens, Poe, and Perry teaches that the plurality of flue gas ports comprise angles that vary from 0 to 90 degrees (Stephens, FIG. 5, the air ports 30 are positioned to have a 0 degree angle along their length).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 20, the combination of Stephens, Poe, and Perry that the slot comprises a shape that is at least one of: circular or rectangular with curved edges (Stephens, FIG. 6, the ports 30 are rectangular with edges that curve).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the combination of Stephens, Poe, and Perry teaches a flange connected to the refractory block (Stephens, FIG. 5, FIG. 7, the tile 22 may act as a flange to the wall 60).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the combination of Stephens, Poe, and Perry teaches that the plurality of flue gas ports include a number of flue gas ports ranging from four flue gas ports to twelve flue gas ports (Stephens, FIG. 6, there are between four and 12 ports 30).
Regarding claim 9, Stephens teaches refractory apparatus (the apparatus shown in FIG. 5), comprising: a refractory block (FIG. 5, floor 14, wall 60, and annular tile 22) comprising a heat shield (FIG. 5, the annular tile 22 forms a heat shield), wherein the refractory block includes a plurality of flue gas ports (FIG. 5, air ports 30, which, according to paragraph 26, are for flue gas recirculation) that acts as a gateway for flue gas produced due to combustion downstream of a burner, wherein a suction created in the burner drives the flue gas into the burner through the plurality of flue gas ports (FIG. 5, gas is drawn in through the ports 30 via suction), wherein the plurality of flue gas ports comprise angles that vary from 0 to 90 degrees (Stephens, FIG. 5, the air ports 30 are positioned to have a 0 degree angle along their length); and a discharge cone (FIG. 5, the cone shaped opening in the tile 22 surrounding burner tip 20) located in the refractory block for flame stabilization in the burner.
Stephens fails to teach a plurality of staged risers housed within the refractory block, wherein the plurality of staged risers is protected in staged fuel riser housings in the refractory block.
However, Poe teaches a plurality of staged risers housed within the refractory block, wherein the plurality of staged risers is protected in staged fuel riser housings in the refractory block (FIG. 1, the risers 164, which, according to paragraph 114, are staged risers, and which are surrounded by housings in the surrounding material).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Stephens by including staged risers and gas circulation ports, as taught by Poe, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stephens with these aforementioned teachings of Poe with the motivation of creating a more efficient burn.
Stephens and Poe fails to teach that each flue gas port among the plurality of flue gas ports includes a slot having a slot area selected to obtain flue gas up to 20% of combustion air.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the flue gas of Stephens 20% air, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Perry teaches a flue gas mixture with several percent air), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that flue gas composition is a result effective variable because it affects the way that a mixture using flue gas burns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flue gas of Stephens 20% air, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 16, Stephens teaches a method of operating a refractory apparatus (the method of operating the apparatus shown in FIG. 5), comprising: providing a refractory block (FIG. 5, floor 14, wall 60, and annular tile 22) comprising a heat shield (FIG. 5, the annular tile 22 forms a heat shield), wherein the refractory block includes a plurality of flue gas ports (FIG. 5, air ports 30, which, according to paragraph 26, are for flue gas recirculation) that act as a gateway for flue gas produced due to combustion downstream of a burner, wherein a suction created in the burner drives the flue gas into the burner through the plurality of flue gas ports ports (FIG. 5, gas is drawn in through the ports 30 via suction); and stabilizing a flame with respect to the flue gas in a discharge cone (FIG. 5, the cone shaped opening in the tile 22 surrounding burner tip 20) located in the refractory block, wherein the discharge cone facilitates flame stabilization in the burner.
Stephens fails to teach a plurality of staged risers housed within the refractory block, wherein the plurality of staged risers is protected in staged fuel riser housings in the refractory block.
However, Poe teaches a plurality of staged risers housed within the refractory block, wherein the plurality of staged risers is protected in staged fuel riser housings in the refractory block (FIG. 1, the risers 164, which, according to paragraph 114, are staged risers, and which are surrounded by housings in the surrounding material).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Stephens by including staged risers and gas circulation ports, as taught by Poe, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stephens with these aforementioned teachings of Poe with the motivation of creating a more efficient burn.
Stephens, Poe, Huang, and Sato fails to teach that each flue gas port among the plurality of flue gas ports includes a slot having a slot area selected to obtain flue gas up to 20% of combustion air.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the flue gas of Stephens 20% air, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Perry teaches a flue gas mixture with several percent air), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that flue gas composition is a result effective variable because it affects the way that a mixture using flue gas burns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flue gas of Stephens 20% air, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens, Poe, and Perry as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Huang (CN 206219426 U) in view of Sato (JP 2012127619 A).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 18, the combination of Stephens, Poe, and Perry fails to teach that the refractory block comprises a refractory material configured on aluminum and silicon oxides with a temperature rating greater than 2600 F.
However, Huang teaches that the refractory block comprises a refractory material configured on aluminum and silicon oxides (“Preferably, the plastic refractory block 122 comprises aluminum oxide and silicon oxide”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Stephens by making the refractory block assembly out of aluminum oxide and silicon oxide, as taught by Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stephens with these aforementioned teachings of Huang since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide for the unspecified material of Stephens. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Huang fails to teach a temperature rating greater than 2600 F.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the temperature rating of the block of Stephens higher than 2600 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Sato teaches an insulator for a burner with a maximum temperature of 1000 degrees Celsius), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that maximum temperature is a result effective variable because it affects the range of temperatures the burner can operate at. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the temperature rating of the block of Stephens higher than 2600 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens, Poe, and Perry as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Coscia (US 20210215337 A1)
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Stephens, Poe, and Perry fails to teach that each staged riser among the plurality of staged rises comprises stainless steel.
However, Coscia teaches that each staged riser among the plurality of staged rises comprises stainless steel (paragraph 15, the risers may be made of stainless steel).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Stephens by making the risers out of stainless steel, as taught by Coscia, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stephens with these aforementioned teachings of Coscia with the motivation of preventing corrosion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, on pages 9-18 of the remarks, the Applicant asserts that the previous rejection is invalid. However, on pages 18 and 19 of the remarks, the Applicant further specifies that because the particular mixture of flue gas in the claims is recirculated, that the assembly achieves unexpected results, and that the combination in the independent claims would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the Examiner notes that the 20% of recirculate combustion air is not outside the range achievable to previous flue gas ports, and that naming a “better number” does not necessarily entail novelty in the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762