DETAILED ACTION
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:
heating device configured to heat the cremation chamber, in claim 35.
air supply device configured to feed supply air to the cremation chamber, in claim 35
interface for pollutant measurement, in claim 64
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.
The corresponding structures described in the specification is/are (see pgpub for citations):
heating device [Wingdings font/0xE0] electrical heater, burner (para. 11)
air supply device [Wingdings font/0xE0] air supply channel (para. 94)
interface [Wingdings font/0xE0] a flange (para. 68)
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.
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) 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202303399 U) in view of Matsukuma (JP 2003056814 A).
Regarding claim 35, Li discloses a combustion apparatus comprising:
a cremation chamber (6);
a heating device (power supply plug 13 + wires extending from the plug; see para. 6) configured to heat the cremation chamber;
an air supply device (fresh air pipe 10) configured to feed supply air to the cremation chamber;
a first exhaust gas manifold (8) configured to discharge an exhaust air from the cremation chamber;
a post-combustion chamber (7) arranged downstream of the cremation chamber;
a radiant wire (12) arranged in an interior of the cremation chamber and operatively connected to the heating device so as to be heated by the heating device.
Li fails to disclose:
the first exhaust gas manifold comprising an exhaust air processing device,
wherein the radiant wire is a gas-tight radiant tube; and
wherein the gas-tight radiant tube is designed for an operating temperature above 900 C and is comprised of a material selected from the group consisting of a high temperature-resistant steel, a ceramic material, and a composite material, and combinations thereof.
Matsukuma teaches an incinerator comprising: a first exhaust gas manifold comprising an exhaust air processing device (4, 7), and a gas-tight radiant tube (2) connected to the heating device (burner 3) so as to be heated by the heating device.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Li wherein the first exhaust gas manifold comprising an exhaust air processing device, and wherein the radiant wire is a gas-tight radiant tube. The motivation to replace the radiant wire and heating device of Li with a radiant tube connected to a heating device, is to eliminate electrical energy costs. If electrical energy is higher than gas costs, then it would be more economical to use a gas-powered radiant tube. The motivation to include an exhaust air processing device is to clean the exhaust gases emanating from the cremation chamber and radiant tube.
With the modification made, the exhaust from the exhaust air processing device would enter an exhaust stack (Matsukuma, 50), and then to an environment outside the cremation chamber (and not recirculated back).
Matsukuma further teaches wherein the gas-tight radiant tube is designed for an operating temperature above 900° C. and is comprised of a material selected from the group consisting of a high temperature-resistant steel, a ceramic material, and a composite material, and combinations thereof (pg. 3: “The radiation tube can be easily…heat resistant steel tube…”; see also pg. 4 discussing where the burner can reach temperatures up to 900 deg. C).
Moreover, if the burner can reach 900 deg. C then a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to design the radiant tube to tolerate even higher temperatures in order to create a margin of safety so that the burner does not degrade from the high heat.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Li wherein the gas-tight radiant tube is designed for an operating temperature above 900° C. and is comprised of a material selected from the group consisting of a high temperature-resistant steel, a ceramic material, and a composite material, and combinations thereof. The motivation to combine is so that the tube won’t degrade from the high temperatures.
Regarding claim 36, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 35, wherein the heating device (3) is arranged outside of the cremation chamber (see Figures).
Regarding claim 37, modified Li discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations unless otherwise noted) a combustion apparatus comprising:
a cremation chamber;
a heating device configured to heat the cremation chamber;
an air supply device configured to feed supply air to the cremation chamber;
a first exhaust gas manifold configured to discharge an exhaust air from the cremation chamber, the first exhaust gas manifold comprising an exhaust air processing device;
a post-combustion chamber arranged downstream of the cremation chamber;
a gas-tight radiant tube arranged in an interior of the cremation chamber and operatively connected to the heating device so as to be heated by the heating device;
wherein the heating device (burner 3 of Matsukuma) is configured to combust a gaseous or liquid fuel (Matsukuma; pg. 3: “The dry distillation chamber is a simple…kerosene burner..”), wherein a second exhaust gas manifold (Matsukuma, 50) is connected (fluidly connected) to the heating device and is configured to discharge an exhaust gas produced by combusting the gaseous or liquid fuel into an environment by bypassing the cremation chamber and by bypassing the post-combustion chamber (the exhaust stack 50 releases exhaust to an environment outside the chamber 1, and is not recirculated back into the cremation chamber or post-combustion chamber, i.e., the exhaust from the stack 50 bypasses both chambers).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202303399 U) in view of Matsukuma (JP 2003056814 A), as applied to claim 35, and further in view of Paskowski (US 2829610 A).
Regarding claim 39, Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 35, wherein the cremation chamber comprises walls (see Figure), except wherein at least one of the walls of the cremation chamber is configured as a double wall comprising a first wall and a second wall and an intermediate space between the first wall and the second wall, wherein the first wall is facing the cremation chamber and the second wall is facing away from the cremation chamber, wherein the intermediate space is an air guiding channel for supply of the supply air into the cremation chamber or for discharge of the exhaust air from the cremation chamber.
However, Paskowski teaches an incinerator, wherein the incineration chamber comprises walls, wherein at least one of the walls of the chamber is configured as a double wall comprising a first wall and a second wall and an intermediate space (Fig. 1, 15) between the first wall and the second wall, wherein the first wall is facing the chamber and the second wall is facing away from the cremation chamber, wherein the intermediate space is an air guiding channel for supply of the supply air into the chamber or for discharge of the exhaust air from the cremation chamber (col. 2, lines 24-31). Paskowski teaches this double wall structure for preheating the air used to combust the garbage.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Li wherein at least one of the walls of the chamber is configured as a double wall comprising a first wall and a second wall and an intermediate space between the first wall and the second wall, wherein the first wall is facing the chamber and the second wall is facing away from the cremation chamber, wherein the intermediate space is an air guiding channel for supply of the supply air into the chamber or for discharge of the exhaust air from the cremation chamber. The motivation to combine is to improve thermal efficiency by using the waste heat for preheating the combustion air.
Claim(s) 56, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202303399 U) in view of Matsukuma (JP 2003056814 A), as applied to claim 35, and further in view of Walsh (US 20220213815 A1)
Regarding claims 56, 57, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 35, except further comprising a heat exchanger connected to the post-combustion chamber and further comprising an energy recovery device, wherein heat from an exhaust air flow is transferred to a heat medium circulating between the heat exchanger and the energy recovery device in a loop (as recited in claim 56), and
wherein the heat medium is a phase-changing liquid and the energy recovery device is a steam turbine driven by the phase-changing liquid, wherein the steam turbine has arranged downstream thereof a current generator driven by the steam turbine, and wherein the current generator converts a rotation energy of the steam turbine into electric current (as recited in claim 57).
However, Walsh teaches a heat exchanger (Fig. 3, 31) connected to a post-combustion chamber (chamber containing the heat exchanger 31), an energy recovery device (Fig. 4, 50), wherein heat from an exhaust air flow is transferred to a heat medium (water) circulating between the heat exchanger and the energy recovery device in a loop, and
wherein the heat medium is a phase-changing liquid (water) and the energy recovery device is a steam turbine (50) driven by the phase-changing liquid, wherein the steam turbine has arranged downstream thereof a current generator driven by the steam turbine (para. 18) ( note: the location of the current generator is not shown in the figures; however, Official Notice is taken that it is well known and common knowledge that the current generator is located downstream the turbine), and wherein the current generator converts a rotation energy of the steam turbine into electric current (para. 18).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Li to include a heat exchanger connected to the post-combustion chamber and further comprising an energy recovery device, wherein heat from an exhaust air flow is transferred to a heat medium circulating between the heat exchanger and the energy recovery device in a loop, and wherein the heat medium is a phase-changing liquid and the energy recovery device is a steam turbine driven by the phase-changing liquid, wherein the steam turbine has arranged downstream thereof a current generator driven by the steam turbine, and wherein the current generator converts a rotation energy of the steam turbine into electric current. The motivation to combine is so that the generated heat can be used to create useful energy.
Claim(s) 58-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202303399 U) in view of Matsukuma (JP 2003056814 A), as applied to claim 35, and further in view of Anatolevich (RU 2772396 C1).
Regarding claim 58, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 35, except wherein the exhaust air processing device comprises a separator for separation of solids from the exhaust air, wherein the separator is connected downstream of the post-combustion chamber.
However, Anatolevich teaches a household waste disposal system, comprising an exhaust air processing device connected to a downstream end of a combustion chamber (Fig. 1, 102), wherein the exhaust air processing device comprises a separator (Fig. 2, 118) for separation of solids from the exhaust air.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Li wherein the exhaust air processing device comprises a separator for separation of solids from the exhaust air, wherein the separator is connected downstream of the post-combustion chamber. The motivation to combine is so dust in the exhaust can be collected and then disposed. Note: for the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims, Anatolevich is used to teach the exhaust air processing device and not Matsukuma.
Regarding claim 59, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 58, except further comprising a collection container connected to the separator and further comprising a cycle lock arranged between the collection container and the separator.
However, Anatolevich teaches a collection container (Fig. 2, 44) connected to the separator (Fig. 2, 118) and further comprising a cycle lock (Fig. 2, 121) arranged between the collection container and the separator.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Li to include a collection container connected to the separator and further comprising a cycle lock arranged between the collection container and the separator. The motivation to combine is so that the separated dust can be collected and disposed.
Regarding claim 60, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 58, except wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises a dust gas filter connected to the separator downstream of the separator in a flow direction of the exhaust air and configured to filter the exhaust air.
However, Anatolevich teaches wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises a dust gas filter (Fig. 2, 125) connected to the separator (Fig. 2, 118) downstream of the separator in a flow direction of the exhaust air and configured to filter the exhaust air.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Li wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises a dust gas filter connected to the separator downstream of the separator in a flow direction of the exhaust air and configured to filter the exhaust air. The motivation to combine is so that the fine dust from the exhaust can be collected and disposed.
Regarding claim 61, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 61, except wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises an absorption device connected to the separator or connected to the dust gas filter and configured to filter the exhaust air.
However, Anatolevich teaches wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises an absorption device (Fig. 2, 106) connected to the separator (Fig. 2, 118) or connected to the dust gas filter (125) and configured to filter the exhaust air (see pg. 16, paragraphs starting with: “When the conical grate 78…” and “Under the action of the vacuum…adsorbent…”).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Li wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises an absorption device connected to the separator or connected to the dust gas filter and configured to filter the exhaust air. The motivation to combine is to absorb pollutants in the exhaust gas.
Regarding claim 62, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 61, except further comprising a heat exchanger arranged between the separator, the dust gas filter and/or the absorption device.
However, Anatolevich teaches a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, 123) arranged between the separator (118), the dust gas filter (125) and/or the absorption device.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Li to include a heat exchanger arranged between the separator, the dust gas filter and/or the absorption device. The motivation to combine is to recover useful heat for a downstream process (e.g., heat for a building).
Claim(s) 58, 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202303399 U) in view of Matsukuma (JP 2003056814 A), as applied to claim 35, and further in view of Mcllroy (US 6077490 A).
Regarding claims 58, 63, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 35, except wherein the exhaust air processing device comprises a separator for separation of solids from the exhaust air, wherein the separator is connected downstream of the post-combustion chamber (as recited in claim 58), and
wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises at least two dust gas filters for filtering the exhaust gas, connected in parallel and alternately operable, arranged downstream of the separator in a flow direction of the exhaust air, wherein a respective inactive dust gas filter of the at least two dust gas filters is operable in a cleaning mode (as recited in claim 63).
However, Mcllroy teaches a exhaust air processing device comprising a separator (Fig. 4 shows a separator zone 56 beneath the filters) for separation of solids from the exhaust air, and wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises at least two dust gas filters (64, 66) for filtering the exhaust gas, connected in parallel and alternately operable (abstract and Fig. 4), arranged downstream of the separator in a flow direction of the exhaust air, wherein a respective inactive dust gas filter of the at least two dust gas filters is operable in a cleaning mode (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Li wherein the exhaust air processing device comprises a separator for separation of solids from the exhaust air, wherein the separator is connected downstream of the post-combustion chamber, and wherein the exhaust air processing device further comprises at least two dust gas filters for filtering the exhaust gas, connected in parallel and alternately operable, arranged downstream of the separator in a flow direction of the exhaust air, wherein a respective inactive dust gas filter of the at least two dust gas filters is operable in a cleaning mode. The motivation to combine is so that the dust from the exhaust can be collected and disposed. Note: for the rejection of this claim, Mcllroy is used to teach the exhaust air processing device and not Matsukuma.
Claim(s) 58, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202303399 U) in view of Matsukuma (JP 2003056814 A), as applied to claim 35, and further in view of Masayoshi (JP 2014240806 A).
Regarding claims 58, 64, modified Li discloses the combustion apparatus according to claim 35, except wherein the exhaust air processing device comprises a separator for separation of solids from the exhaust air, wherein the separator is connected downstream of the post-combustion chamber (as recited in claim 58), and
an interface for pollutant measurement arranged at the first exhaust gas manifold at a location between the separator and a blow-out end of the first exhaust gas manifold (as recited in claim 64).
However, Masayoshi teaches a waste treatment furnace, comprising an exhaust air processing device having a separator (Fig. 1, 102) for separation of solids from the exhaust air, wherein the separator is connected downstream of the combustion chamber (101), and
an interface (1+11) for pollutant measurement arranged at the first exhaust gas manifold (Fig. 1, L1) at a location between the separator and a blow-out end of the first exhaust gas manifold.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Li wherein the exhaust air processing device comprises a separator for separation of solids from the exhaust air, wherein the separator is connected downstream of the post-combustion chamber, and an interface for pollutant measurement arranged at the first exhaust gas manifold at a location between the separator and a blow-out end of the first exhaust gas manifold. The motivation to combine is so that the components of the exhaust gas can be analyzed. The result is that the process can be monitored and controlled. For example, if excess toxic contaminants are detected, then the cremation process can be stopped. Note: for the rejection of this claim, Masayoshi is used to teach the exhaust air processing device and not Matsukuma.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 8, 9 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
314
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
136
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Matsukuma discloses that temperatures can reach up to 900 deg. C, but that does not mean that it is a maximum temperature that should not be surpassed. The Examiner reiterates that if temperatures can reach 900 deg. C, then it would motivate a person skilled in the art to choose a material for the tube that can handle much higher temperatures.
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 9 of the Remarks:
Re. Claim 37:
PNG
media_image3.png
115
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Once the exhaust is in the stack 50, it does not recirculate back to the post-combustion chamber; therefore, the exhaust bypasses the post-combustion chamber once the exhaust is in the stack.
Examiner’s response to the remaining remarks:
Claim 41 is allowed due to the amendment where the intermediate space forms the post-combustion chamber for the exhaust air.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights