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 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that neither Wray nor Hovis can provide for the limitation requiring “loading a mixing chamber with a first fluid…while a volume of the first fluid within the mixing chamber is constant” [claim 1 lines 2-3]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant cites the specification which states that “[w]hile the volume of the primary fluid within the mixing chamber is constant or motionless (e.g. the primary fluid is considered stationary), the secondary fluid is injected into the mixing chamber using the fluid injectors, so as to mix with the primary fluid” [paragraph 0049 of the applicant’s specification and pp. 12 of the applicant’s response]. A stationary primary fluid means that the mixing chamber is a closed volume. The claims do not require that the mixing chamber is closed, rather they only require that a volume of first fluid within the mixing chamber is constant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the primary fluid in the mixing chamber is motionless/stationary) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the case of both Wray and Hovis a gas is injected into a mixing chamber whose volume is constant despite having an open inlet and outlet; therefore, at any given instant the injected gas will occupy the entire volume of the mixing chamber, no more and no less, therefore meeting the limitations of the claims which require that “a volume of the first fluid within the mixing chamber is constant”. For this reason, the rejections are maintained.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 14 overcome the claim objections presented in the Non-Final rejection dated 09/04/2025, therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wray et. al (US 4,676,744).
With respect to claim 1 Wray discloses a method of mixing a first fluid with a second fluid, comprising: loading a mixing chamber [reference character 27] with a first fluid [air or natural gas via reference characters 42 or 43, respectively]; and while a volume of the first fluid within the mixing chamber is constant [the volume of the mixing chamber is fixed]: injecting a first stream of the second fluid [see annotated Fig. below] into the mixing chamber along a first injection direction; and injecting a second stream of the second fluid into the mixing chamber along a second injection direction [see annotated Fig. below] that intersects the first injection direction, wherein, as a result of injecting the first and second streams of the second fluid into the mixing chamber, the first and second streams of the second fluid impinge one another so as to generate within the mixing chamber at least one further stream of the second fluid that mixes with the first fluid and that flows in a direction different to the first and second injection directions [see annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image1.png
684
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2 Wray discloses that the direction of flow of the at least one further stream of the second fluid is perpendicular to the first and second injection directions [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 3 Wray discloses that the volume of the mixing chamber is fixed [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 4 Wray discloses that the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of about 180 degrees [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 5 Wray discloses that the mixing chamber defines a longitudinal axis [the axis coincident with “a direction different to the first and second injection directions” in the annotated Fig. above], and wherein the first and second injection directions are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 6 Wray discloses that the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of about 180 degrees [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 7 Wray discloses that the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of from 10 to 180 degrees [180 degrees, see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 8 Wray discloses that the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of about 140 to 180 degrees [180 degrees, see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 15 Wray discloses that the first fluid comprises a hydrocarbon [specifically natural gas, see column 3 lines 6-8].
With respect to claim 16 Wray discloses that the hydrocarbon is natural gas [see column 3 lines 6-8].
With respect to claim 17 Wray discloses that the second fluid is air [column 3 lines 35-39].
With respect to claim 18 Wray discloses that the second fluid comprises carbon dioxide and water, note that column 3 lines 35-39 recite that Wray discloses air, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that air includes both carbon dioxide and water vapor.
With respect to claim 19 Wray discloses that the first fluid comprises a hydrocarbon [specifically natural gas, see column 3 lines 6-8]; the second fluid comprises an oxidant [air, see column 3 lines 35-39]; and after loading the mixing chamber with the first fluid and before injecting the first and second streams of the second fluid into the mixing chamber, a temperature of the first fluid is at least a temperature required for autoignition of the first fluid in the presence of the second fluid [prior to contacting the second fluid the first fluid is precombusted, see column 3 lines 50-60].
With respect to claim 20 Wray discloses that the oxidant comprises air [column 3 lines 35-39].
With respect to claim 21 Wray discloses that the first fluid comprises methane [see column 3 lines 6-8], the oxidant is air [column 3 lines 35-39], and the temperature required for autoignition is at least 850 K [a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention would recognize that the autoignition temperature of natural gas in air is 850K1].
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 14, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hovis et. al (US 5,180,300).
With respect to claim 1 Hovis discloses a method of mixing a first fluid with a second fluid, comprising: loading a mixing chamber [see annotated Fig. below] with a first fluid [air through 134]; and while a volume of the first fluid within the mixing chamber is constant [the volume of the mixing chamber is fixed]: injecting a first stream of the second fluid [via reference character 138 (or reference character 136 for the purposes of claims 7-9)] into the mixing chamber along a first injection direction; and injecting a second stream of the second fluid [through reference character 138 (or reference character 136 for the purposes of claims 7-9) on the opposite side of the mixing chamber] into the mixing chamber along a second injection direction that intersects the first injection direction, wherein, as a result of injecting the first and second streams of the second fluid into the mixing chamber, the first and second streams of the second fluid impinge one another so as to generate within the mixing chamber at least one further stream of the second fluid that mixes with the first fluid and that flows in a direction different to the first and second injection directions [see column 6 line 59 through column 7 line 12 and the annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image2.png
273
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7 Hovis discloses that the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of from 10 to 180 degrees [see column 7 lines 39-45].
With respect to claim 8 Hovis discloses that the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of about 140 to 180 degrees [see column 7 lines 39-45].
With respect to claim 9 Hovis disclose that the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of about 160 degrees [see column 7 lines 39-45].
With respect to claim 10 Hovis discloses injecting the first stream into the mixing chamber comprises injecting the first stream from a first fluid injector; injecting the second stream into the mixing chamber comprises injecting the second stream from a second fluid injector; and the method further comprises: injecting from the first fluid injector a third stream [via reference character 136] of the second fluid into the mixing chamber along a third injection direction; and injecting from the second fluid injector a fourth stream [through reference character 138 on the opposite side of the mixing chamber] of the second fluid into the mixing chamber along a fourth injection direction that intersects the third injection direction, wherein: the first injection direction intersects the second injection direction at an angle of about 180 degrees; and the third injection direction intersects the fourth injection direction at an angle of from 10 to 180 degrees [see column 6 line 59 through column 7 line 12 and the annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image3.png
272
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14 Hovis discloses that injecting a third stream [via reference character 136] of the second fluid into the mixing chamber; and injecting a third(fourth) stream [through reference character 138 on the opposite side of the mixing chamber] of the second fluid into the mixing chamber, wherein, as a result of injecting the third and fourth streams of the second fluid into the mixing chamber, the third and fourth streams of the second fluid impinge one another so as to generate within the mixing chamber at least one further stream of the second fluid [see annotated Fig. below] that: mixes with the first fluid and flows in a direction different to the third and fourth injection directions; and impinges the at least one further stream generated by the impingement of the first and second streams of the second fluid [see annotated Fig. above, where “a direction different to the third and fourth injection directions” is the same direction as shown in the annotated Fig. associated with Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 25 Hovis discloses injecting the first stream into the mixing chamber comprises injecting the first stream from a first fluid injector [reference character 140]; injecting the second stream into the mixing chamber comprises injecting the second stream from a second fluid injector [through reference character 140 on the opposite side of the mixing chamber]; and wherein the first and second fluid injectors are offset from one another such that, in response to the first and second streams of the second fluid impinging one another, vorticity is introduced in one or more of the first stream, the second stream, and the at least one further stream of the second fluid to thereby improve mixing of the second fluid with the first fluid [see column 6 line 59 through column 7 line 12].
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovis et. al (US 5,180,300) in view of Hirano et. al (US 9,822,970 B2).
With respect to claim 11 Hovis discloses that the angle of intersection between fluid streams is from 10 to 180 degrees [see column 7 lines 39-45].
Hovis does not disclose injecting from the first fluid injector a fifth stream of the second fluid into the mixing chamber along a fifth injection direction; and injecting from the second fluid injector a sixth stream of the second fluid into the mixing chamber along a sixth injection direction that intersects the fifth injection direction.
Hirano discloses multiplexed injectors that include three injectors per head [see Fig. 12] which in combination with Hovis would be first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth streams.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention was to provide fifth and sixth streams, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wray et. al (US 4,676,744).
With respect to claims 22-23 Wray discloses that the oxidant is air [column 3 lines 35-39].
Wray does not disclose that the first fluid comprises hydrogen (claim 22) or carbon monoxide (claim 23). However, in the same field of burners it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify Wray by using hydrogen or carbon monoxide instead of natural gas, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Since both hydrogen and carbon monoxide would work as fuels, the designation of a specific fuel does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention would recognize that the autoignition temperature of hydrogen in air is 773K and the autoignition temperature of carbon monoxide is 882K2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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
1 https://www.fireandsafetycentre.co.uk/blogs/safety-storage/auto-ignition-temperature?srsltid=AfmBOorugP1_0PMP11Fp8F8ItTqA7WyGOezrcGQQwzYCd_mZiy5IVHAC
2 https://www.fireandsafetycentre.co.uk/blogs/safety-storage/auto-ignition-temperature?srsltid=AfmBOorugP1_0PMP11Fp8F8ItTqA7WyGOezrcGQQwzYCd_mZiy5IVHAC