DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/28/2025 has been entered.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 20150050604 A1) in view of Bacon (US 20150354815 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Griffin discloses a clean burning gas flare comprising:
a mixing chamber (Fig. 5, 130) having an upper opening (discharge outlet);
a gathering chamber (Fig. 3A: LP chamber) positioned below the mixing chamber;
at least one high pressure riser (Fig. 2, 113-117) having a high pressure gas opening (Fig. 5: outlet of 117) positioned at least partly below the upper opening of the mixing chamber;
a low pressure riser (Fig. 5, 129) providing fluid communication between the gathering chamber and the mixing chamber (Figs. 2, 3A), the low pressure riser
extending into the mixing chamber, each low pressure riser having a low pressure gas opening (Fig. 5: discharge end of chamber 129) positioned within the mixing chamber (para. 38); and
an air riser (Fig. 5, 127) in fluid communication with the mixing chamber through an air opening (Fig. 5: bottom of chamber 129) positioned below the low pressure gas opening and the high pressure gas opening.
Griffin fails to disclose:
where the single low pressure riser is a plurality of risers, and
where the low pressure gas opening is positioned below the high pressure gas opening
Bacon teaches a clean burning gas flare, comprising:
a plurality of low pressure risers (Fig. 2 shows risers 60+62+92+94 for outputting a motive gas-air mixture), and
where each low pressure riser has a low pressure gas opening (Fig. 2: top of educator 68) positioned below the high pressure gas opening (Fig. 2 shows a top outlet of center tube 12) (the center tube conveys a waste gas).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Griffin where the single low pressure riser (Griffin, 129) is a plurality of low-pressure risers surrounding the high pressure riser (Griffin, 117), and where the low pressure gas opening is positioned below the high pressure gas opening. With the modification, the low pressure risers (Griffin, 129) can output the gas-air mixture at a high velocity, so as to intimately mix with the high pressure gas from the high pressure riser. The modification promotes optimal mixing of the HP gas, LP gas, and air leading to more complete (i.e., smokeless) combustion. Moreover, the modification would provide for more stable combustion, since the high velocity jets (from the low pressure riser) surrounding the high pressure riser would help stabilize the gas coming out of the high pressure riser.
Regarding claim 7, modified Griffin discloses the clean burning gas flare of claim 6, wherein the high pressure gas opening is radially centered with respect to the opening of the mixing chamber and the low pressure gas openings are arranged radially around the high pressure gas opening (see rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin discloses the clean burning gas flare of the claim 6 further comprising: a side riser (Fig. 2, 119) in fluid communication with the gathering chamber through a side riser opening (Figs. 2/3A, 118).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 20150050604 A1) in view of Bacon (US 20150354815 A1), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Penterson (US 6474250 B1).
Regarding claim 9, 10, Griffin fails to disclose a plurality of flame tabs/a least one straightening vane extending radially inward from the upper opening of the mixing chamber. However, Penterson teaches a burner comprising a plurality of flame tabs/straightening vanes (teeth 106, Fig. 1) extending radially inward from the opening/inner wall of the burner. The purpose of the teeth is to stabilize the flame (col. 4, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Griffin to include a plurality of flame tabs/straightening vanes extending radially inward from the upper opening/inner wall of the mixing chamber. The motivation to combine is to help stabilize the flame, which would lead to clean burning of the waste gas. A stable flame produces more complete combustion and reduces noise.
Regarding claim 12, modified Griffin discloses wherein the at least one straightening vane is disposed over one of the low pressure gas openings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new combination of references.
Conclusion
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 on 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