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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 4 in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 ends in “; and/or” without further limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 ends in “;” without further limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 3 recites “means allowing the main oxidant to additionally enter the ignition chamber in flow direction.” The applicant’s specification states “In certain embodiments, the main oxidant conduit (30) further comprises purge holes (32) located on the oxidant purge plate (73), particularly in flow direction parallel to the main axis (2) of the burner.” Therefore, the means allowing the main oxidant to additionally enter the ignition chamber in flow direction will be interpreted as this corresponding structure or an equivalent.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the said two sections." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the said two sections” will be interpreted as -two sections-. The examiner notes that claim 7 might alternately be intended to depend from another claim which does possess the requisite antecedent.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the secondary fuel conduit." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the secondary fuel conduit” will be interpreted as - a secondary fuel conduit -. The examiner notes that claim 8 might alternately be intended to depend from another claim which does possess the requisite antecedent.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the secondary fuel." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the secondary fuel” will be interpreted as - a secondary fuel -. The examiner notes that claim 11 might alternately be intended to depend from another claim which does possess the requisite antecedent.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the ignition source." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the ignition source” will be interpreted as – the ignition chamber -. Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation “the purge holes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the purge holes” will be interpreted as – purge holes -.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the ignition source." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the ignition source” will be interpreted as – the ignition chamber -. Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation “the inner circle of secondary fuel exit holes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the inner circle of secondary fuel exit holes” will be interpreted as – an inner circle of secondary fuel exit holes -. Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation “the oxidant bleed cup.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the oxidant bleed cup” will be interpreted as – an oxidant bleed cup -.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the ignition source." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the ignition source” will be interpreted as – the ignition chamber -. Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation “the air premixing holes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the air premixing holes” will be interpreted as – air premixing holes -. Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation “the ignition cup.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the ignition cup” will be interpreted as – an ignition cup -. Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation “the oxidant bleed cup.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the oxidant bleed cup” will be interpreted as – an oxidant bleed cup -. Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation “the oxidant purge plate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the oxidant purge plate” will be interpreted as – an oxidant purge plate -. Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation “the primary fuel exit plate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the primary fuel exit plate” will be interpreted as – a primary fuel exit plate -. Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation “the secondary fuel distribution plate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the secondary fuel distribution plate” will be interpreted as – a secondary fuel distribution plate -.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the secondary fuel." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the secondary fuel” will be interpreted as -a secondary fuel-.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the ignition source." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the ignition source” will be interpreted as – the ignition chamber -.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altemark (DE 4011190 A1), hereinafter Altemark.
Regarding claim 1, Altemark discloses a burner, comprising:
a primary fuel conduit comprising a primary fuel outlet having a multiplicity of primary fuel exit holes for supply of a primary fuel (“a fuel feed line 4” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference) into an ignition chamber (“a basket-shaped flame holder 3”), wherein the wall surrounding the ignition chamber comprises a plurality of bleed holes (Figure 1 shows holes),
a main oxidant conduit for supply of a main oxidant (“an air duct 9”), comprising an intermediate annular conduit in a downstream portion of the burner (6 and possibly some or all of 1), which intermediate annular conduit is configured to allow splitting of the main oxidant, such that a first portion is introduced into the ignition chamber via the plurality of bleed holes to mix with the primary fuel, and a second portion is introduced into an oxidant section (“the primary air through the air openings 11 entering the combustion chamber. The air duct 9 continues up to the secondary air openings 12 , from which the secondary air exits”),
wherein at least in the downstream portion of the burner, in which primary fuel outlet, ignition chamber, intermediate annular conduit are present, the primary fuel conduit is surrounded by the main oxidant conduit (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altemark, in view of Batz (US 20160076763 A1), hereinafter Batz.
Regarding claim 2, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark does not disclose:
a secondary fuel conduit for supply of a secondary fuel, having a secondary fuel outlet at its downstream end,
wherein the secondary fuel outlet comprises a secondary fuel distribution plate having a multiplicity of secondary fuel exit holes, and
wherein at least two sets of holes are located on different concentric diameters.
However, Batz teaches:
a secondary fuel conduit for supply of a secondary fuel, having a secondary fuel outlet at its downstream end (“A plurality of second fuel lances 110 are arranged around the central burner 1” paragraph [0065]),
wherein the secondary fuel outlet comprises a secondary fuel distribution plate having a multiplicity of secondary fuel exit holes (The end plate supporting elements 110), and
wherein at least two sets of holes are located on different concentric diameters (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Batz, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include secondary fuel conduits as is taught in Batz, in the burner disclosed by Altemark because Batz states “The high control ratio, according to the invention, of the central burner is achieved, inter alia, by combining a central lance with a plurality of outer lances surrounding it” (paragraph [0017]). Therefore, including outer secondary fuel conduits as in Batz will enable a high control ratio.
Regarding claim 15, Altemark discloses a method for operating the burner claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
i) starting the burner (“The recuperator burner according to the invention is particularly suitable especially for the combustion of gaseous or vaporous fuel”)
Altemark does not explicitly disclose:
ii) ramping up the burner in firing rate,
iii) starting the secondary fuel,
iv) further changing the flow rate of primary, secondary fuel and burner equivalence ratio as required by the process.
However, Batz teaches:
ii) ramping up the burner in firing rate,
iii) starting the secondary fuel,
iv) further changing the flow rate of primary, secondary fuel and burner equivalence ratio as required by the process (“A support of the flames of the outer lances can hereby be achieved through the flame of the central lance so that a high control range is facilitated during operation of the central burner” paragraph [0024]).
In view of the teachings of Batz, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include secondary fuel conduits as is taught in Batz, in the method disclosed by Altemark because Batz states “The high control ratio, according to the invention, of the central burner is achieved, inter alia, by combining a central lance with a plurality of outer lances surrounding it” (paragraph [0017]). Therefore, including outer secondary fuel conduits as in Batz will enable a high control ratio.
Regarding claim 16, Altemark, as modified by Batz, discloses the method of claim 15,
A) wherein step i) comprises starting the main oxidant, the ignition source, and the primary fuel (Altemark discloses a main oxidant, and a primary fuel, “combustion of gaseous or vaporous fuel,” and shows an ignition source in figure 1), and/or
B) wherein the burner is operated in such a way that
i) during start-up, 100% of the total thermal power of the burner is provided by the primary fuel; and/or
ii) during normal operation, 0 to 70% of the total thermal power of the burner is provided by the primary fuel, and the respective rest is provided by the secondary fuel.
Regarding claim 17, Altemark, as modified by Batz, discloses the method of claim 15.
Altemark, as modified by Batz, does not disclose wherein the burner is operated in such a way that
i) the volumetric flow rate of the ignition chamber oxidant is 5 to 25% of the total main oxidant flow rate; and/or
ii) the volumetric flow rate of oxidant is 1-10% of the total main oxidant flow rate and/or
iii) the equivalence ratio is between 1.0 and 0.25.
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, Altemark discloses dividing the air between the ignition chamber and a downstream flow, but does not specifically recite the percentage. Achieving the claimed percentage is a results-effective variable because Altemark states “The recuperator burner according to the invention thus works with two-stage combustion, the primary air through the air openings 11 entering the combustion chamber. The air duct 9 continues up to the secondary air openings 12.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify percentage, because the selection of percentage to achieve two-stage combustion constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altemark, in view of Lefebvre (US 2850875 A), hereinafter Lefebvre.
Regarding claim 6, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark, does not disclose wherein the ignition chamber comprises an ignition cup as well as an oxidant bleed cup, wherein the ignition cup is comprised in a first section of the ignition chamber, and the oxidant bleed cup is comprised in a second section of the ignition chamber, wherein the second section is located downstream of the first section.
However, Lefebvre teaches wherein the ignition chamber comprises an ignition cup as well as an oxidant bleed cup, wherein the ignition cup is comprised in a first section of the ignition chamber (“the gas igniting electrode 29 enters into the first expansion chamber 53 through one of the air apertures 59” column 3, line 22), and the oxidant bleed cup is comprised in a second section of the ignition chamber, wherein the second section is located downstream of the first section (“The outwardly convex section 55 likewise has a series of air inlet apertures 75” column 3, line 50).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Lefebvre’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 wherein the ignition chamber comprises an ignition cup as well as an oxidant bleed cup, wherein the ignition cup is comprised in a first section of the ignition chamber, and the oxidant bleed cup is comprised in a second section of the ignition chamber, wherein the second section is located downstream of the first section as is taught in Lefebvre, in the burner disclosed by Altemark because Lefebvre states “I have found that appreciable improvement can be had in terms of a greater combustion efficiency and more adequate flame pattern control in a new head” (column 1, line 26). Therefore, including the features taught by Lefebvre will improve combustion efficiency and flame patter control.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altemark, in view of Rothhaar (US 3574508 A), hereinafter Rothhaar.
Regarding claim 7, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark does not disclose wherein the burner further comprises one or more mechanical mixer plates, wherein each mechanical mixer plate is located downstream of and adjacent to two sections.
However, Rothhaar teaches wherein the burner further comprises one or more mechanical mixer plates, wherein each mechanical mixer plate is located downstream of and adjacent to two sections (“In order to enhance the flame retention and ignition control properties of the burner, the cone 34 further includes a plurality of circumferential bosses 40 and 42 extending inwardly from the interior cone surface and axially disposed intermediate aperture stages 35--36 and 36--37” column 3, line 25).
PNG
media_image4.png
536
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Rothhaar’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 wherein the burner further comprises one or more mechanical mixer plates, wherein each mechanical mixer plate is located downstream of and adjacent to two sections as is taught in Rothhaar, in the burner disclosed by Altemark because Rothhaar states that the plates enhance flame retention and ignition control properties of the burner.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altemark, in view of Stenzel (DE 3838635 A1), hereinafter Stenzel.
Regarding claim 9, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark does not disclose wherein the burner further comprises an ignition source that terminates in the ignition chamber,
wherein the ignition source is a central ignition source having a central axis and a conduit end plane,
wherein the main axis of the burner coincides with the central axis of the ignition source, wherein at least in said downstream portion of the burner the central ignition source is surrounded by the primary fuel conduit, the main oxidant conduit and the secondary fuel conduit.
However Stenzel teaches wherein the burner further comprises an ignition source that terminates in the ignition chamber,
wherein the ignition source is a central ignition source having a central axis and a conduit end plane,
wherein the main axis of the burner coincides with the central axis of the ignition source, wherein at least in said downstream portion of the burner the central ignition source is surrounded by the primary fuel conduit, the main oxidant conduit and the secondary fuel conduit (“the conductor 13 is passed through the fuel lance 5 inside. It is electrically connected to an end wall Ver 16 of the front portion 6 of the fuel lance 5. The front closure wall 16 is opposite a bottom 17 through which a spark plug 18 is made for connection to the conductor 13” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image5.png
194
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Altemark does not disclose the claimed ignition source (The examiner notes that figure 1 of Altemark shows an unlabeled feature which is ostensibly an igniter). Stenzel teaches the claimed ignition source. The substitution of one known element (the ignition source of Altemark) for another (the ignition source of Stenzel) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the ignition source taught in Stenzel would have yielded predictable results, namely, a source for ignition of the burner Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altemark, in view of Nowak (US 4431403 A), hereinafter Nowak.
Regarding claim 10, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1, wherein the intermediate annular conduit is configured to allow splitting of the main oxidant into two portions (Figure 1 of Altemark).
Altemark does not disclose wherein the main oxidant conduit further comprises a swirler section, wherein the second portion is introduced into a swirler section, wherein the swirl angle is from 5 to 70 degrees.
However, Nowak teaches wherein the main oxidant conduit further comprises a swirler section, wherein the second portion is introduced into a swirler section, wherein the swirl angle is from 5 to 70 degrees (“secondary air flowing through axial swirl vane assembly 88 is swirled in a counterclockwise direction by vanes 84 which may be oriented at an angle 108 of between 45° to 55° to a line parallel to the burner axis” column 6, line 49).
PNG
media_image6.png
356
750
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
452
502
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Nowak’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 wherein the main oxidant conduit further comprises a swirler section, wherein the second portion is introduced into a swirler section, wherein the swirl angle is from 5 to 70 degrees as is taught in Nowak, in the burner disclosed by Altemark because Nowak states “Contact between the inner and outer counter-swirling streams causes turbulent shearing to occur along the interface” (column 7, line 34). Therefore, including a swirling flow will promote turbulent shearing and therefore improve mixing in the burner of Altemark.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altemark.
Regarding claim 11, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark does not explicitly disclose wherein the burner is configured in such a way that
i) the velocity of the primary fuel is between 30 ft/s and 500 ft/s; and/or
ii) the velocity of the main oxidant is between 10 ft/s and 300 ft/s; and/or
iii) the velocity of the secondary fuel is between 30 ft/s and 500 ft/s.
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, Altemark discloses primary fuel and main oxidant, but does not specifically recite the claimed speeds. Achieving the claimed speeds is a results-effective variable because speed of the reactants is determined by the size of the burner and desired power output. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify reactant speed, because the selection of reactant speed to achieve desired power output constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark does not explicitly disclose wherein
i) the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2, the diameter of the primary fuel exit holes is defined as DO, wherein DO/D2 is between 0.05 and 0.6; and/or
ii) the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2, the diameter of the purge holes is defined as D1, wherein D1/D2 is between 0.06 and 0.15.
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, Altemark discloses primary fuel exit holes and ignition chamber diameters, but does not specifically recite the claimed ratio. Achieving the claimed ratio is a results-effective variable because diameters are determined by the desired fuel speed and ignition chamber flame size. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diameters, because the selection of diameter to achieve desired fuel speed and flame size constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark does not explicitly disclose wherein
i) the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2 and the inner diameter of the primary fuel conduit is defined as D3, wherein D3/D2 is from 1.5 to 5.0; and/or
ii) the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2 and the inner diameter of the main oxidant conduit is defined as D4, wherein D4/D2 is from 2.0 to 12.0; and/or
iii) the inner diameter of the main oxidant conduit is defined as D4 and the innermost extension of the inner circle of secondary fuel exit holes is defined as D8, wherein D8/D4 is from 1.1 to 1.4; and/or
iv) the inner diameter of the main oxidant conduit is defined as D4 and the outermost extension of the outer circle of secondary fuel exit holes is defined as D9, wherein D9/D4 is from 1.6 to 2.5; and/or
v) the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2, the inner diameter of the oxidant bleed cup is defined as D6, and wherein D6/D2 is from 1.5 to 6.0.
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, Altemark discloses primary fuel conduit and ignition chamber diameters, but does not specifically recite the claimed ratio. Achieving the claimed ratio is a results-effective variable because diameters are determined by the desired fuel volume and ignition chamber flame size. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diameters, because the selection of diameter to achieve desired fuel volume and flame size constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Furthermore, the court has held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, figure 1 of Altemark shows a D3/D2 of about 3. Though figures may not be solely relied upon to show relative size, the figure indicates that the ratio is at least close to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Altemark discloses the burner of claim 1.
Altemark does not explicitly disclose wherein
i) the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2, the diameter of the air premixing holes is defined as P0, wherein PO/D2 is between 0.02 and 0.2; and/or
ii) the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2, the inner diameter of the bleed holes is defined as P1/D2; wherein P1/D2 is between 0.06 and 0.5; and/or
iii) the distance between the primary fuel conduit wall or wall of the ignition cup, respectively, and the intermediate annular conduit wall is defined as L4, and the distance between the primary fuel conduit end plane and the intermediate annular conduit end plane is defined as L1, wherein L4/L1 is between 0.7 and 1.1; and/or
iv) the inner diameter of the primary fuel conduit is defined as D3, the distance between the primary fuel conduit end plane (24) and the intermediate annular conduit end plane is defined as L1, the distance between the intermediate annular conduit end plane and the main oxidant conduit end plane is defined as L2 and wherein (L1+L2)/D3 is from 0.2 to 2.0; and/or
v) the inner diameter of the primary fuel conduit is defined as D3, the length of the oxidant bleed cup is defined as LO1, and wherein (L01)/D3 is from 0.1 to 1.0; and/or
vi) the distance between the wall of the oxidant bleed cup and the intermediate annular conduit wall is defined as L5, and the distance between the primary fuel conduit end plane and the intermediate annular conduit end plane is defined as L1, wherein L5/L1 is between 0.3 and 0.6; and/or
vii) the distance between the primary fuel conduit wall or wall of the ignition cup, respectively, and the intermediate annular conduit wall is defined as L4, and the inner diameter of the primary fuel conduit is defined as D3, wherein L4/D3 is between 0.2 and 0.6; and/or
viii) the inner diameter of the primary fuel conduit is defined as D3, the primary fuel outlet is recessed in upstream direction from the primary fuel conduit end plane by a distance LO, and wherein LO/D3 is from 0.2 to 2.0; and/or
ix) wherein the outer diameter of the ignition source is defined as D2, the diameter of secondary fuel exit holes is defined as D7 and wherein D7/D2 is between 0.05 and 0.6; and/or
x) the distance between two rows of bleed holes measured between their centers is defined as H and the inner diameter of the bleed holes is defined as P1, wherein H/P1 is from 1.25 to 2.5; and/or
xi) the ratio of the area of all bleed holes in one row to the surface area of cylinder of height, P1 and inner diameter, D2 is between 10% and 55%; and/or
xii) the oxidant purge plate has a porosity (defined by the total open area on the plate that allows the air to flow divided by cross-section area of the plate) in the range of 1% to 8%; and/or
xiii) the primary fuel exit plate has a porosity (defined by the total open area on the plate that allows the fuel to flow divided by cross-section area of the plate) in the range of 4% to 25%; and/or
xiv) the secondary fuel distribution plate has a porosity (defined by the total open area on the plate that allows the fuel to flow divided by cross-section area of the plate) in the range of 8% to 25%.
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, Altemark discloses bleed hole and ignition chamber diameters, but does not specifically recite the claimed ratio. Achieving the claimed ratio is a results-effective variable because diameters are determined by the desired air speed admitted to the ignition chamber and ignition chamber flame size. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diameters, because the selection of diameter to achieve desired air speed and flame size constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the ignition chamber is extending from the primary fuel outlet to the intermediate annular conduit exit plane, wherein the wall surrounding the ignition chamber comprises at least two sections of annular conduits.” The closest art Altemark does not disclose these features and no art was found such that modification of Altemark would have rendered claim 5 obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim and base claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the ignition chamber is extending from the primary fuel outlet to the intermediate annular conduit exit plane… the first section has an outer diameter smaller than or equal to the outer diameter of the primary fuel conduit and comprises a plurality of bleed holes, wherein the first section further comprises means allowing the main oxidant to additionally enter the ignition chamber in flow direction.” The closest art Altemark does not disclose these features and no art was found such that modification of Altemark would have rendered claim 3 obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim and base claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the ignition chamber is extending from the primary fuel outlet to the intermediate annular conduit exit plane… the first section is extending from the primary fuel outlet to the primary fuel conduit end plane, wherein the primary fuel conduit wall surrounding the section comprises a plurality of bleed holes.” The closest art Altemark does not disclose these features and no art was found such that modification of Altemark would have rendered claim 4 obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim and base claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the ignition chamber is positioned within the primary fuel conduit, and is extending from the primary fuel outlet to the primary fuel conduit end plane, wherein the primary fuel conduit wall is surrounding the ignition chamber and comprises a plurality of bleed holes.” The closest art Altemark does not disclose these features and no art was found such that modification of Altemark would have rendered claim 8 obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim and base claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gahwyler (US 2850875 A)
PNG
media_image8.png
458
506
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Altemark (US 5055032 A)
PNG
media_image9.png
444
712
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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