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 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the applicant argues that the outer jets of Tsiava are not coaxial. However, the examiner points out that the outer jet of Dugue is coaxial. Tsiava is relied upon for teaching more than one outer jet. The court held that 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 this case, Tsiava teaches that it is known to include multiple secondary oxidant jets for symmetry while Dugue discloses that a secondary oxidant jet should be configured as a coaxial oxidant jet. A symmetrical configuration in Dugue would duplicate the coaxial oxidant jet.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Tsiava does not teach a first and second oxidant, but only a first oxidant, the examiner disagrees. Tsiava“the oxygen concentration of the central primary jet of oxidizer may be greater than the oxygen concentration of the sheathing primary jet of oxidizer and the second and third jets. This may be the case when the supply of high purity oxygen is limited. The high oxygen concentration oxidizer is then injected in the form of the central primary jet of oxidizer, while the air is injected in all the other jets of oxidizer” (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding the applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to provide Dugue with triple-coaxial arrangement of Tsiava, the examiner disagrees. Tsiava states “the central jet of oxidizer ensures both a good conveyance of the jet of fuel and a sufficiently high velocity of this jet of fuel. Thus, the fuel is perfectly conveyed toward the zone of combustion” (paragraph [0012]). Therefore, including the central oxidizer will improve conveyance of the fuel in Dugue.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 has been amended to recite “ejecting the by means of the second inner fluid ejection element” which will be interpreted as - ejecting the fuel by means of the second inner fluid ejection element-. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugue (FR 2830606 A1), hereinafter Dugue, in view of Tsiava (US 20070172781 A1), hereinafter Tsiava.
Regarding claim 1, Dugue discloses a burner for combustion of fluids comprising an inner fluid supply unit with fluid ejection elements and an outer fluid supply unit, wherein the inner fluid supply unit comprises
a first inner fluid ejection element, particularly a first pipe (“a fuel injector 40” all citations from machine translation appended to the foreign reference), and
a second inner fluid ejection element, particularly a second pipe, encompassing at least an axial portion of the first inner fluid ejection element (“a first oxidant injector 42 with a small section, both coaxial”) and
wherein the inner fluid supply unit is configured for ejecting a first oxidant and a fuel by means of the fluid ejection elements of the inner fluid supply unit (“the outlet section of at least one of the fuel and oxidant injectors being modified to modify the speed of the corresponding fluid”)
wherein the outer fluid supply unit comprises at least one outer fluid ejection elements, arranged at a specific radial distance from the inner fluid supply unit (44,46),
wherein each individual outer fluid ejection element is configured for ejecting the first oxidant and second oxidant by a central fluid ejection element, wherein said central fluid ejection element is a central pipe, and an encompassing fluid ejection element, wherein said an encompassing fluid ejection element is an encompassing pipe which encompasses at least an axial portion of the central fluid ejection element (“a double oxidant injector, comprising a second injector 44 with a small section and a injector with a large section 46”).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dugue does not disclose:
a third inner fluid ejection element, particularly a third pipe, encompassing at least an axial portion of the second inner fluid ejection element and
wherein the inner fluid supply unit is configured for ejecting a second oxidant by means of the fluid ejection elements of the inner fluid supply unit
wherein the outer fluid supply unit comprises at least two outer fluid ejection elements.
However, Tsiava teaches:
a first inner fluid ejection element, particularly a first pipe (Inner pipe 9), and
a second inner fluid ejection element, particularly a second pipe, encompassing at least an axial portion of the first inner fluid ejection element (Outer pipe 9) and
a third inner fluid ejection element, particularly a third pipe, encompassing at least an axial portion of the second inner fluid ejection element (5) and
wherein the inner fluid supply unit is configured for ejecting a first oxidant, a second oxidant and a fuel by means of the fluid ejection elements of the inner fluid supply unit (“The primary oxidizer 2, 3 is injected both into the central tube of the pipe 9 and into the free space 10. The fuel 1 is injected into the space defined between the inner tube and the outer tube of the injection pipe 9” paragraph [0021])
wherein the outer fluid supply unit comprises at least two outer fluid ejection elements, arranged at a specific radial distance from the inner fluid supply unit, particularly from a centre of the inner fluid supply unit, particularly from a centre of the first inner fluid ejection element (“FIG. 1 represents a portion of the device that is designed symmetrically relative to the axis AA’” paragraph [0021]. Elements 6 and/or 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
508
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Tsiava’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 a configuration as is taught in Tsiava, in the burner disclosed by Dugue because Tsiava states “the central jet of oxidizer ensures both a good conveyance of the jet of fuel and a sufficiently high velocity of this jet of fuel. Thus, the fuel is perfectly conveyed toward the zone of combustion” (paragraph [0012]). Therefore, including the central oxidizer will improve conveyance of the fuel in Dugue. Additionally, Tsiava states “For a good symmetry of the combustion assembly, the jets of second oxidizer are, preferably, placed evenly around the jets of fuel and of primary oxidizer” (paragraph [0017]). Therefore, including duplicate outer fluid supply units will improve symmetry of the combustion assembly of Dugue.
Regarding claim 2, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim 1, wherein the burner is configured for controlling at least one ratio between amounts of the ejected first oxidant and/or the ejected second oxidant and/or the ejected fuel such that at least one process parameter is optimized (“first means (48) for distributing the oxidant between the third injector (46), with a large cross section, and all of the other two oxidant injectors (42,46), and second means (40) for distributing between the latter the portion of oxidant directed towards these two other injectors”).
Regarding claim 3, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim 2, wherein the burner is configured for controlling a first ratio between an amount of the first oxidant and an amount of the second oxidant ejected by means of both the inner fluid supply unit and the outer fluid supply unit (48 or 49);
controlling a second ratio between an amount of the first oxidant and/or the second oxidant ejected by means of the inner fluid supply unit and an amount of the first oxidant and/or the second oxidant ejected by means of the outer fluid supply unit (The other of 48 or 49); and
controlling the first ratio and the second ratio such that the at least one process parameter is optimized (By operation of 48 and 49).
Regarding claim 4, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim 1, wherein the outer fluid supply unit comprises at least two outer fluid ejection elements arranged circumferentially around the inner fluid supply unit (By the modification taught by Tsiava).
Regarding claim 7, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses a method for operating a burner according to claim 1, comprising the steps of:
ejecting a first oxidant, a second oxidant and a fuel by means of individual fluid ejection elements of the inner fluid supply unit (By the modification taught by Tsiava); and
controlling at least one ratio between amounts of the ejected first oxidant and/or the ejected second oxidant and/or the ejected fuel such that at least one process parameter is optimized (“first means (48) for distributing the oxidant between the third injector (46), with a large cross section, and all of the other two oxidant injectors (42,46), and second means (40) for distributing between the latter the portion of oxidant directed towards these two other injectors”).
Regarding claim 8, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising the steps of:
controlling a first ratio between an amount of the first oxidant and the second oxidant ejected by means of both the inner fluid supply unit and the outer fluid supply unit (Via 48 or 49);
controlling a second ratio between an amount of the first oxidant and/or the second oxidant ejected by means of the inner fluid supply unit and an amount of the first oxidant and/or the second oxidant ejected by means of the outer fluid supply unit (Via the other of 48 or 49); and
controlling the first ratio and the second ratio such that the at least one process parameter is optimized (By operation of 48 and 49).
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 16, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 7 wherein the first oxidant comprises oxygen and wherein the second oxidant is air (“the oxygen concentration of the central primary jet of oxidizer may be greater than the oxygen concentration of the sheathing primary jet of oxidizer and the second and third jets. This may be the case when the supply of high purity oxygen is limited. The high oxygen concentration oxidizer is then injected in the form of the central primary jet of oxidizer, while the air is injected in all the other jets of oxidizer” paragraph [0016] of Tsiava).
Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first oxidant comprises more than 80%, more than 90%, or more than 95% by volume oxygen. 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, Tsiava teaches the first oxidant is a higher oxygen concentration than air, but does not specifically recite the claimed oxygen concentrations. Achieving more the claimed oxygen concentrations is a results-effective variable because Tsiava states “This stream closest to the stream of fuel is called the primary stream; it allows the partial combustion of the fuel at a controlled temperature which limits the formation of NOx” (paragraph [0002]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the concentration of oxygen, because the selection of oxygen concentration to achieve reduced NOx constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising the steps of:
ejecting the first oxidant, by means of the first inner fluid ejection element (“The primary oxidizer 2, 3 is injected both into the central tube of the pipe 9 and into the free space 10” paragraph [0021] of Tsiava);
ejecting the fuel by means of the second inner fluid ejection element (“The fuel 1 is injected into the space defined between the inner tube and the outer tube of the injection pipe 9” paragraph [0021] of Tsiava); and
ejecting the second oxidant by means of the third inner fluid ejection element (“the oxygen concentration of the central primary jet of oxidizer may be greater than the oxygen concentration of the sheathing primary jet of oxidizer and the second and third jets. This may be the case when the supply of high purity oxygen is limited. The high oxygen concentration oxidizer is then injected in the form of the central primary jet of oxidizer, while the air is injected in all the other jets of oxidizer” paragraph [0016] of Tsiava).
Regarding claim 11, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 10, further comprising the step of:
ejecting the first oxidant and/or the second oxidant by means of the at least one outer fluid ejection element (“a double oxidant injector, comprising a second injector 44 with a small section and a injector with a large section 46”).
Regarding claim 12, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising the steps of:
ejecting the first oxidant by means of the central fluid ejection element of the at least one of the outer fluid ejection elements and ejecting the second oxidant by means of the encompassing fluid ejection element of the at least one of the outer fluid ejection elements (“Thus, the first oxidant can be pure oxygen and the second oxidant from air”).
Regarding claim 13, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the first oxidant is independently supplied to the inner fluid supply unit and to the outer fluid supply unit (At least some portion of the supply path is independent).
Regarding claim 14, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the second oxidant is independently supplied to the inner fluid supply unit and to the outer fluid supply unit (At least some portion of the supply path is independent).
Regarding claim 17, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim 1, wherein
the first inner fluid ejection element is a first pipe (At 9 in Tsiava),
the second inner fluid ejection element is a second pipe (At 40 or 60 in Dugue), encompassing at least an axial portion of the pipe (Figure 1 of Tsiava),
the third inner fluid ejection element is a third pipe, encompassing at least an axial portion of the second pipe (At 42 or 62 in Dugue),
the central fluid ejection element is a central pipe (At 44 or 66), and
the encompassing fluid ejection element is an encompassing pipe, encompassing at least an axial portion of the central pipe (At 46 or 64).
the outer fluid supply unit comprises at least two outer fluid ejection elements, arranged at a specific radial distance from the center of the inner fluid supply unit (As taught by Tsiava).
Regarding claim 18, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim 1, wherein the outer fluid supply unit comprises at least two outer fluid ejection elements arranged circumferentially around the inner fluid supply unit such that the at least two outer fluid ejection elements have the same radial distance from the center of the inner fluid supply unit (“For a good symmetry of the combustion assembly, the jets of second oxidizer are, preferably, placed evenly around the jets of fuel and of primary oxidizer. This arrangement may also be applied to the jet of third oxidizer.” paragraph [0017] of Tsiava).
Regarding claim 20, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising ejecting the first oxidant by means of the central fluid ejection element of the at least one of the outer fluid ejection elements and ejecting the second oxidant by means of the encompassing fluid ejection element of the at least one of the outer fluid ejection elements, wherein the first oxidant is oxygen and the second oxidant is air (The embodiment of figure 14 “the first oxidant can be pure oxygen and the second oxidant from air”).
Regarding claim 21, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim1, wherein the at least two outer fluid ejection elements are arranged at a specific radial distance from a center of the inner fluid supply unit (“For a good symmetry of the combustion assembly, the jets of second oxidizer are, preferably, placed evenly around the jets of fuel and of primary oxidizer. This arrangement may also be applied to the jet of third oxidizer.” paragraph [0017] of Tsiava).
Regarding claim 22, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim1, wherein the at least two outer fluid ejection elements are arranged at a specific radial distance from a center of the first inner fluid ejection element (“For a good symmetry of the combustion assembly, the jets of second oxidizer are, preferably, placed evenly around the jets of fuel and of primary oxidizer. This arrangement may also be applied to the jet of third oxidizer.” paragraph [0017] of Tsiava).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugue, in view of Tsiava, and further in view of Dennis (US 20210404654 A1), hereinafter Dennis.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the burner according to claim 1, wherein a fluid, which is to be ejected by means of an individual fluid ejection element of the inner fluid supply unit, is further to be ejected by means of at least one outer fluid ejection element of the outer fluid supply unit (Figures 12 or 14).
Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, does not disclose wherein at least one pressure reducing element is attached to an inner wall and/or outer wall of at least one of the fluid ejection elements of the inner fluid supply unit, wherein at least one pressure reducing element is provided for an individual fluid ejection element of the inner fluid supply unit.
However, Dennis teaches wherein at least one pressure reducing element is attached to an inner wall and/or outer wall of at least one of the fluid ejection elements of the fluid supply unit, wherein at least one pressure reducing element is provided for an individual fluid ejection element of the fluid supply unit (“In addition to restricting and balancing reactant flows, use of the flow restrictors 26 enables replacement of the inner outlet pipes 44, when necessary, and maintains the alignments between the various concentric pipes” paragraph [0034]).
In view of the teachings of Dennis, 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 at least one pressure reducing element is attached to an inner wall and/or outer wall of at least one of the fluid ejection elements of the fluid supply unit, wherein at least one pressure reducing element is provided for an individual fluid ejection element of the fluid supply unit as is taught in Dennis, in the burner disclosed by Dugue because Dennis states that the restrictions balance reactant flows and maintain alignments between concentric pipes. Therefore, including the restrictions in Dennis will balance reactant flows and maintain alignments between the concentric pipes in Dugue.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugue, in view of Tsiava, and further in view of Cao (US 20070254251 A1), hereinafter Cao.
Regarding claim 19, Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the first oxidant is oxygen, and the second oxidant is air (“the oxygen concentration of the central primary jet of oxidizer may be greater than the oxygen concentration of the sheathing primary jet of oxidizer and the second and third jets. This may be the case when the supply of high purity oxygen is limited. The high oxygen concentration oxidizer is then injected in the form of the central primary jet of oxidizer, while the air is injected in all the other jets of oxidizer” paragraph [0016] of Tsiava).
Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, does not explicitly disclose wherein the fuel is methane or natural gas (The examiner points out that Dugue mentions natural gas in the prior art in such a way that it might be implied that the invention is an improvement to burners using natural gas).
However, Cao teaches wherein the fuel is methane or natural gas (“fuel is supplied via fuel inlet 14 to the annulus between pipes 10 and 11… fuel may be a gaseous fuel or a liquid fuel, for example, natural gas, ethane, propane, diesel oil, refinery fuel gas, hydrogen, or a combination thereof” paragraph [0069]).
PNG
media_image4.png
564
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dugue, as modified by Tsiava, does not disclose the claimed fuel. Cao teaches the claimed fuel. The substitution of one known element (the fuel of Dugue) for another (the natural gas of Tsiava) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the natural gas taught in Tsiava would have yielded predictable results, namely, a fuel for combustion Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
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 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