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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues, on pp. 9-10 of the remarks, that the combination of Mravcak, Linhardt, and Coffee, cannot provide for the requirements of the amended claim because “[t]he Office Action's reasoning relies on hindsight to assemble the presently claimed arrangement from disparate references, each addressing different sub-problems, without a teaching that the combination, as a whole, would have been pursued by a person skilled in the art for the reasons now exploited by the invention” [pp. 10 of the remarks]. The examiner respectfully disagrees, amended claim 1 requires the limitations of dependent claims 3, 4, 17, and 20, which were rejected over combinations of Mravcak, Linhardt, and Coffee, where the applicant has not argued against the motivation behind any specific combination. See rejection below.
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) 1, 6-8, 12-13, 21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mravcak et. al (US 2019/0101280 A1) in view of Linhardt et. al (US 3,770,048) and further in view of Coffey et. al (US 2003/0059732 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Mravcak discloses a fuel incinerating system comprising: a) an ejector system comprising: an ejection nozzle [reference characters 12-13] configured to eject fuel at a predefined forced velocity, and a multi-stage fuel-air mixing system having an inlet end [reference character 14a] and an outlet end [reference character 14b], the inlet end being in fluidic communication with the fluid ejection nozzle to receive the fuel ejected from the nozzle, wherein the fuel-air mixing system is configured to entrain air to be mixed with the fuel to form a fuel-air mixture, the multi-stage fuel-air mixing system comprising a plurality of concentric fuel intake tubes [reference characters 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22] arranged in series, each intake tube having an inlet [reference characters 14a, 16a, 18a, 20a, and 22a] and an outlet [reference characters 14b, 16b, 18b, 20b, and 22b], wherein the inlet of each intake tube has a cross sectional area greater than a cross sectional area of the outlet of a preceding intake tub [see Fig. 2], thereby providing an annular gap between adjacent intake tubes for entraining additional air when the fuel-air mixture is passed from one intake tube into a subsequent intake tube [see Fig. 2]; b) a combustor [reference character 32] positioned downstream of the multi-stage fuel-air mixing system, the combustor having an inlet end [reference character 34a] in fluidic communication with the outlet end of the multi-stage fuel-air mixing system, and an outlet end [reference character 34b], the combustor defining a combustion chamber between the inlet and the outlet thereof, the combustor further being in communication with a primary ignition source [reference character 120]; and c) an exhaust system comprising a primary exhaust pipe [reference character 36] having an inlet end in fluidic communication with the outlet end of the combustor and an outlet end to exhaust products of fuel combustion.
Mravcak does not disclose that the multi-stage fuel-air mixing system and the combustor are oriented horizontally; and the primary exhaust pipe is oriented horizontally or the primary exhaust pipe comprises a horizontally oriented portion and a vertically oriented portion having the outlet end to exhaust the products of fuel combustion vertically in an upward direction.
Linhardt discloses an incinerator system that includes a fuel air mixing system/burner [reference character 10] that is oriented horizontally [see Fig. 1] and the primary exhaust pipe comprises a horizontally oriented portion and a vertically oriented portion [the elbow, see annotated Fig. below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to modify the system taught by Mravcak by including mounting the fuel air mixing system and the combustor horizontally and extend the exhaust pipe vertically through an elbow, as taught by Linhardt, in order to reduce the overall height of the combustor/flue assembly and make the combustor/mixing system easier to service.
The combination of Mravak and Linhardt do not disclose that the exhaust system further comprises a secondary exhaust pipe concentric with the primary exhaust pipe, and having an inlet in communication with the outlet of the primary exhaust pipe and an outlet, wherein the inlet of the secondary exhaust pipe has a cross sectional area greater than a cross sectional area of the outlet of the primary exhaust pipe, thereby providing an annular gap between adjacent pipes for entraining air when the products of fuel combustion are passed from the primary exhaust pipe into the secondary exhaust pipe; or wherein the exhaust system further comprises a plurality of concentric secondary exhaust pipes, each having an inlet and an outlet, wherein a first of the plurality of the secondary exhaust pipes being concentric with the primary exhaust pipe, and the inlet of at least one of the secondary exhaust pipes has a cross sectional area greater than a cross sectional area of the outlet of the preceding exhaust pipe, thereby providing an annular gap between adjacent pipes for entraining air when the products of fuel combustion are passed from one exhaust pipe into a subsequent exhaust pipe, optionally each one of the secondary exhaust pipes has a cross sectional area greater than the cross sectional area of the outlet of the preceding exhaust pipe.
Coffee discloses an incineration system that includes a combustion chamber [reference character 1] and a secondary exhaust pipe [see annotated Fig. below] concentric with the primary exhaust pipe [see annotated Fig. below], and having an inlet in communication with the outlet of the primary exhaust pipe and an outlet, wherein the inlet of the secondary exhaust pipe has a cross sectional area greater than a cross sectional area of the outlet of the primary exhaust pipe, thereby providing an annular gap [see annotated Fig. below] between adjacent pipes for entraining air when the products of fuel combustion are passed from the primary exhaust pipe into the secondary exhaust pipe. Coffee further discloses a plurality of concentric secondary exhaust pipes [see annotated Fig. below], each having an inlet and an outlet [see annotated Fig. below], wherein a first of the plurality of the secondary exhaust pipes being concentric with the primary exhaust pipe, and the inlet of at least one of the secondary exhaust pipes has a cross sectional area greater than a cross sectional area of the outlet of the preceding exhaust pipe, thereby providing an annular gap [see annotated Fig. below] between adjacent pipes for entraining air when the products of fuel combustion are passed from one exhaust pipe into a subsequent exhaust pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the stack taught by Mravcak by including the flue structure taught by Coffey in order to allow for the entrainment of ambient air to ensure complete oxidation of noxious combustion products generated during incineration [see Abstract and paragraphs 0003 and 0026 of Coffey].
PNG
media_image1.png
283
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
563
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Mravcak and Linhardt disclose that the primary exhaust pipe comprises a horizontally oriented portion having the inlet end, and a connecting portion between the vertically oriented portion and the horizontally oriented portion [see annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image3.png
336
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7 Mravcak discloses that multi- stage fuel-air mixing system and the combustor are oriented at an angle relative to horizontal [see Figs. 3B and 8A-8B, where vertical is interpreted as “at an angle relative to horizontal”].
With respect to claim 8 Mravcak discloses the primary exhaust pipe comprises a vertically oriented portion having the outlet end to exhaust the products of fuel combustion vertically in an upward direction [see Fig. 3B and 8A-8B].
With respect to claim 12 Mravcak discloses that the ejection nozzle is coaxial with the multi-stage fuel-air mixing sytem [see Fig. 3B].
With respect to claim 13 Mravcak discloses that the exhaust pipe further comprises one or more air intake vents [reference characters 92 and 94].
With respect to claim 21 the combination of Mravcak and Coffey disclose that each one of the secondary exhaust pipes has a cross-sectional area greater than the cross-sectional area of the outlet of the preceding exhaust pipe [see Fig. 2 of Coffey].
With respect to claim 23 the combination of Mravcak disclose that the system comprises one or more support members [reference character 29 of Linhardt] to horizontally secure the combustor and the inlet portion of the exhaust pipe to a surface [reference character 21].
With respect to claim 24 the combination of Mravcak and Linhardt disclose that the surface is a skid [reference character 21 of Linhardt and Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mravcak et. al (US 2019/0101280 A1) in view of in view of Linhardt et. al (US 3,770,048) in view of Coffey et. al (US 2003/0059732 A1) and further in view of Hallit (US 2002/0115033 A1).
With respect to claim 10 Mravcak does not disclose that the multi-stage fuel-air mixing system and the combustor are oriented vertically downwardly, such that the fuel-air mixture and the products of the fuel combustion move vertically in a downward direction.
Hallit discloses a burner system [reference character 10] that is vertically oriented in a downfired orientation [see paragraph 0015]. The downfire orientation is combined with an elongated heat exchanger structure [reference character 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Mravcak by orienting the burner in a downfire orientation, as taught by Hallit, in order to utilize the heat released by the burner via a vertical heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 11 the combination of Mravcak and Hallit disclose that the primary exhaust pipe comprises a vertically oriented portion having the outlet end to exhaust the products of fuel combustion vertically in a downward direction [flipping the entire apparatus taught by Mravcak so that the burner is a downfire burner, in combination with Hallit, would result in the invention required by claim 11].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mravcak et. al (US 2019/0101280 A1) in view of in view of Linhardt et. al (US 3,770,048) in view of Coffey et. al (US 2003/0059732 A1) and further in view of Swithenbank (US 5,823,759).
With respect to claim 15 Mravcak does not disclose that the exhaust system further comprises one or more diffuser ducts, each having an inlet and an outlet, and stacked downstream from the outlet end of the primary exhaust pipe, wherein at least one of the diffuser ducts has a cross-sectional area increasing from the inlet end to the outlet end thereof.
Swithenbank discloses a stack pipe [reference character 10] that includes a diffuser duct [reference character 12] downstream from the outlet of the primary exhaust pipe, wherein at least one of the diffuser ducts has a cross-sectional area increasing from the inlet end to the outlet end thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Mravcak by including a diffuser duct at the output of the primary exhaust pipe, as taught by Swithenbank, in order to “…inhibit downwash [and] ensure that the gaseous products resulting from combustion of the gas and air mixture are emitted upwardly into the atmosphere” [column 4 lines 61-65 of Swithenbank].
With respect to claim 16 the combination of Mravcak and Swithenbank disclose that the diffuser duct having an inlet in communication with the outlet end of the primary exhaust pipe has the cross-sectional area increasing from the inlet end to the outlet end thereof [see Fig. 2 of Swithenbank].
With respect to claim 18 Mravcak and Coffey does not disclose that the exhaust system further comprises one or more diffuser ducts, each having an inlet and an outlet, and stacked downstream from the outlet end of the primary exhaust pipe, wherein at least one of the diffuser ducts has a cross-sectional area increasing from the inlet end to the outlet end thereof.
Swithenbank discloses a stack pipe [reference character 10] that includes a diffuser duct [reference character 12] downstream from the outlet of the primary exhaust pipe, wherein at least one of the diffuser ducts has a cross-sectional area increasing from the inlet end to the outlet end thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Mravcak and Coffey by including a diffuser duct at the output of the primary exhaust pipe, as taught by Swithenbank, in order to “…inhibit downwash [and] ensure that the gaseous products resulting from combustion of the gas and air mixture are emitted upwardly into the atmosphere” [column 4 lines 61-65 of Swithenbank].
With respect to claim 19 the combination of Mravcak, Coffey, and Swithenbank disclose that the diffuser duct having an inlet in communication with the outlet end of the primary exhaust pipe has the cross-sectional area increasing from the inlet end to the outlet end thereof [see Fig. 2 of Swithenbank].
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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762