DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 2, line 13, the recitation “A fan or what is” is grammatically incorrect and needs revision
On pg. 2, line 16, the recitation “suction mechanism or what is” is grammatically incorrect and needs revision
It is recommended that Applicant review the specification in its entirety to ensure that no other issues are present
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, in the 5th line from the end of the claim, insert a comma at the end of the line
In Claim 2, change “wherein the determining a respective enthalpy flow rate of the respective enthalpy flow rates includes calculating said respective enthalpy flow rate” to -- wherein the determining of the respective enthalpy flow rates includes calculating said respective enthalpy flow rates --
In Claim 2, the last line, change “a heating channel” to -- each respective heating channel --
In Claim 6, line 3, change “and enthalpy rate” to -- an enthalpy rate --
In Claim 19, line 7, change “furnace unit, a furnace unit comprising a heating” to -- furnace unit comprising a heating --
In Claim 19, line 8, add -- is -- to the end of the line
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “determining a status of the heating channel” which is considered indefinite because several distinct heating channels have been established (see Claim 1 on which Claim 5 depends - “a plurality of heating channels”). It is unclear which heating channel, of all the possible heating channels, that “the heating channel” is referring to. It is unclear if “the heating channel” is referring to a specific heating channel in a specific “section”, to a heating channel at a specific “position”, to each and every heating channel or to some other heating channel altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Claims 6-17 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 5.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “respective pressures in the heating channel” which is considered indefinite because several distinct heating channels have been established (see (at least) Claim 1 - “a plurality of heating channels”). It is unclear which heating channel, of all the possible heating channels, that “the heating channel” is referring to. It is unclear if “the heating channel” is referring to a specific heating channel in a specific “section”, to a heating channel at a specific “position”, to each and every heating channel or to some other heating channel altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “determining the status of the heating channel” which is considered indefinite because several distinct heating channels have been established (see (at least) Claim 1 - “a plurality of heating channels”). It is unclear which heating channel, of all the possible heating channels, that “the heating channel” is referring to. It is unclear if “the heating channel” is referring to a specific heating channel in a specific “section”, to a heating channel at a specific “position”, to each and every heating channel or to some other heating channel altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a probability of the status of the heating channel” which is considered indefinite because several distinct heating channels have been established (see (at least) Claim 1 - “a plurality of heating channels”). It is unclear which heating channel, of all the possible heating channels, that “the heating channel” is referring to. It is unclear if “the heating channel” is referring to a specific heating channel in a specific “section”, to a heating channel at a specific “position”, to each and every heating channel or to some other heating channel altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a loss of pressure in the heating channel” which is considered indefinite because several distinct heating channels have been established (see (at least) Claim 1 - “a plurality of heating channels”). It is unclear which heating channel, of all the possible heating channels, that “the heating channel” is referring to. It is unclear if “the heating channel” is referring to a specific heating channel in a specific “section”, to a heating channel at a specific “position”, to each and every heating channel or to some other heating channel altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dreyer et al. (DE 69907437 T2) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Dreyer teaches of a method for operating a furnace (1) (see at least [0028] and Fig. 1) including a plurality of heating channels (3) and furnace chambers (4), the furnace chambers configured to receive carbonaceous bodies (40), and the heating channels configured to control temperature of the furnace chambers (see at least [0032], [0040], [0060] and Figs. 1-2, 4-5), the furnace comprising at least one furnace unit (the furnace unit shown in Fig. 1), wherein the at least one furnace unit includes a heating zone (heating zone comprising elements (21)), a fire zone (fire zone comprising elements (22)) and a cooling zone (cooling zone comprising elements (23)), each of which is formed by at least one section (at least one section of C1-C10 as shown in Fig. 1) comprising the furnace chambers (see at least [0003], [0052] and Fig. 1), wherein a suction ramp (“suction ramp” - (211)) of the at least one furnace unit is disposed in a section of the heating zone (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0060], [0062] and Fig. 1), and a burner ramp (“burner ramp” comprising elements (221)) of the at least one furnace unit is disposed in a section of the fire zone (see at least [0006], [0039], [0063] and Fig. 1), the method comprising:
heating process air in the heating channels of the fire zone by means of the burner ramp (see at least [0006], [0039], [0063] and Fig. 1),
suctioning exhaust gas from the heating channels of the heating zone by means of the suction ramp (211) (see at least [0060], [0062] and Fig. 1),
wherein an operation of the burner ramp and the suction ramp is controlled by means of a control device (5) of the furnace unit (see at least [0028], [0048], [0059] and Fig. 1), and further comprising:
with the control device,
determining respective enthalpy flow rates (“calculating the corresponding enthalpy flows Ej” of “respective combustion gas flows”) for at least two sections of the furnace unit (see at least [0018], [0021] and Fig. 1),
determining a characteristic representing a difference of the respective enthalpy flow rates (characteristic of, at least, if and/or by how much “corresponding energy Ej” differs from a “setpoint” of Ej) (see at least [0018], [0021], [0062] and Fig. 1),
comparing said characteristic to a presupposed characteristic (presupposed characteristic of, at least, “setpoint” of “Ej” wherein “corresponding energy Ej” is compared to the “setpoint”) (see at least [0018], [0021], [0062] and Fig. 1), and
defining a status of the furnace (status of whether or not “the value of R or Ej” matches the “setpoint” and needs to be “corrected” or not) based on a result of said comparing (see at least [0018], [0021], [0062] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Dreyer also teaches that the determining of the respective enthalpy flow rates includes calculating said respective enthalpy flow rate (Ej) from a ratio of a respective pressure (“pressure” - “P”), a respective temperature (“temperature” - “Tj”), and a respective mass flow rate (“quantity flow” - “DGj”) in a heating channel of the heating channels (Note that the limitation of calculating said respective enthalpy flow rate from a “ratio of a respective pressure, a respective temperature, and a respective mass flow rate in a heating channel of the heating channels” is being interpreted as calculating said respective enthalpy flow rate from respective amounts of pressure, a respective temperature, and a respective mass flow rate in a heating channel of the heating channels. In the instant case, Dreyer teaches of calculating said respective enthalpy flow rate (Ej) from the respective amounts/quantities of all three of these parameters and accordingly performs this step of “determining” via “calculating” as claimed - see at least [0018], [0062] and Fig. 1.).
Regarding Claim 4, Dreyer also teaches of, with the control device, determining a volumetric flow rate (at least “air flow rate” - “DAj”) of a section of the at least two sections of the furnace unit between a corresponding suction ramp (211) and a corresponding cooling ramp (231) based on a pressure (“pressure measurement” - “Pj”) measured in a heating channel of the heating channels or other physical parameters in said heating channel (see at least [0043], [0048], [0050], [0056] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 18, Dreyer also teaches of controlling, with the control device (5), a volumetric flow rate and/or an enthalpy flow rate (“Ej”) of the respective enthalpy flow rates (“controlling the energy flow Ej” in order to “control the operating elements of the furnace”) (see at least [0020]-[0021], [0045] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Dreyer teaches of a control device (5) (see at least [0028], [0048], [0059] and Fig. 1) for operating a furnace (1) formed by a plurality of heating channels (3) and furnace chambers (4), the furnace chambers configured to receive carbonaceous bodies (40), and the heating channels configured to control temperature of the furnace chambers (see at least [0032], [0040], [0060] and Figs. 1-2, 4-5), the furnace comprising at least one furnace unit (the furnace unit shown in Fig. 1) comprising a heating zone (heating zone comprising elements (21)), a fire zone (fire zone comprising elements (22)) and a cooling zone (cooling zone comprising elements (23)), each of which is formed by at least one section (at least one section of C1-C10 as shown in Fig. 1) comprising furnace chambers (see at least [0003], [0052] and Fig. 1),
wherein a suction ramp (“suction ramp” - (211)) of the furnace unit is disposed in a section of the heating zone (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0060], [0062] and Fig. 1), and a burner ramp (“burner ramp” comprising elements (221)) of the furnace unit is disposed in a section of the fire zone (see at least [0006], [0039], [0063] and Fig. 1),
wherein the burner ramp is configured to heat process air in heating channels of the fire zone (see at least [0006], [0039], [0063] and Fig. 1), and the suction ramp is configured to suction exhaust gas from heating channels of the heating zone (see at least [0060], [0062] and Fig. 1),
wherein the control device (5) of the furnace unit is configured to control an operation of the suction ramp and the burner ramp (see at least [0045], [0048], [0062] and Fig. 1),
wherein the control device is configured:
to determine respective enthalpy flow rates (“calculating the corresponding enthalpy flows Ej” of “respective combustion gas flows”) for at least two sections of the furnace unit (see at least [0018], [0021] and Fig. 1), as a characteristic (characteristic of, at least, if and/or by how much “corresponding energy Ej” differs from a “setpoint” of Ej) (see at least [0018], [0021], [0062] and Fig. 1),
to compare said characteristic to a presupposed characteristic (presupposed characteristic of, at least, “setpoint” of “Ej” wherein “corresponding energy Ej” is compared to the “setpoint”) (see at least [0018], [0021], [0062] and Fig. 1), and
to determine a status of the furnace (status of whether or not “the value of R or Ej” matches the “setpoint” and needs to be “corrected” or not) based on comparison of said characteristic to the presupposed characteristic (see at least [0018], [0021], [0062] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20: Dreyer teaches the control device according to Claim 19 (see the rejection for Claim 19) in addition to an anode furnace (Fig. 1) comprising the same (see at least [0014], [0028] and Fig. 1). Dreyer accordingly teaches of an “anode furnace comprising a control device according to claim 19” as claimed.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer in view of El Ghaoui Yann et al. (FR 2940417 A1) (hereinafter “Yann”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 3, Dreyer teaches the method according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1), but fails to explicitly teach of, with the control device, identifying a blockage and/or a leak of a heating channel of the heating channels as the status of the furnace, and issuing an alert and/or stopping a fuel supply of the burner ramp.
Yann discloses a relatable furnace (Fig. 2) and method for operating the same that comprises, with a control device (“control system”) (see Par. 3 of pg. 7 of the attached translation and Figs. 1-3), identifying a blockage and/or a leak (blockage in the form of “clogging”) of a heating channel (heating channel (4) that element (27) is disposed within as shown in Fig. 3) of a plurality of heating channels (4) (see Figs. 1-3) as a status of the furnace (“clogged” status) (see Par. 3 of pg. 7 and Figs. 1-3), and issuing an alert and/or stopping a fuel supply of a burner ramp (23) as a result (“an alarm and / or an immediate cut-off of the primary fuel injection”) (see at least Par. 2 of pg. 7, Par. 1 on pg. 9 and Figs. 1-3). Yann teaches that doing so, inter alia, provides means for enhancing “safety” of the furnace/method (see at least Par. 2 of pg. 7, Par. 1 on pg. 9 and Figs. 1-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method taught by Dreyer by configuring the method to include, with the existing control device, identifying a blockage of a heating channel of the existing heating channels as the status of the furnace, and issuing an alert and/or stopping a fuel supply of the burner ramp based on the teachings of Yann. Doing so would have provided means for enhancing safety of the furnace and method. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Dependent Claims 5-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claim 5: To the extent that Claim 5 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejection set forth in this Office Action, no known prior art including that of Dreyer and Yann teaches the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 5. Claim 5 specifies “determining an enthalpy flow rate for at least one position P of multiple positions P1, P2, ..., P20 at each section, and determining a status of the heating channel, said each section, and/or a respective position based on said comparing said characteristic to a presupposed characteristic”. Dreyer only teaches of determining an enthalpy flow rate over each section, not of doing so for “for at least one position P of multiple positions P1, P2, ..., P20 at each section” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Thus, Dreyer fails to anticipate Claim 5 and no known motivation would have existed to have overly complicated the functional method already taught by Dreyer (or that of any other known prior art) to include “determining an enthalpy flow rate for at least one position P” of twenty distinct positions (i.e., “multiple positions P1, P2, ..., P20”) at “each section” of the plurality of established sections in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 5 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, as is presented above in this Office Action, Claim 5 and its dependent claims (Claims 6-17) stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Voigt (US 3,612,498)
Olivarez, Jr. et al. (US 4,687,439)
Peacey et al. (US 4,382,778)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 5/14/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights