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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 30-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites limitations identical to those already required by claim 15, from which claim 20 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 26 and 27 is 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
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the intermediate portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring “the offset portion”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the second gas flow" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring “the first gas flow”, consistent with claim 23 from which claim 27 depends.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitz III (US 3,822,984, hereinafter Straitz) in view of Jin-Shan (CN 106610017 A, machine translated).
With respect to claim 1 Straitz discloses a hybrid flare assembly for waste gas combustion, comprising: a shell [reference character 11] defining a duct, the shell including an exhaust portion [see annotated Fig. below] extending from an offset portion [see annotated Fig. below], wherein an angle between longitudinally extending lines of the exhaust portion and the offset portion is acute [see annotated Fig. below].
Straitz does not disclose an ignitor for igniting the waste gas, the ignitor mounted to a shaft for longitudinal movement within the exhaust portion.
Jin-Shan discloses a burner system having a high energy igniter [reference character 17] mounted to a shaft [reference character 18] that extends through the center of a burner tube [reference character 22] and is positioned for longitudinal movement within the burner tube allowing the igniter to be retracted from the combustion zone after ignition to prevent the igniter from being burned1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare stack taught by Straitz by including the retractable igniter taught by Jin-Shan, in order to prevent the igniter from being burned [see pp. 5 of the machine translation of Jin-Shan].
PNG
media_image1.png
467
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose that the longitudinal movement of the ignitor and shaft occurs at least partially within a guide tube [reference character 10 of Jin-Shan] extending substantially along a centerline of the exhaust portion.
With respect to claim 3 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose that the exhaust portion of the shell partially defines a combustion chamber [reference character 7 of Jin-Shan] and the ignitor is supported within the combustion chamber.
With respect to claim 4 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose that the shell further includes an input portion [see annotated Fig. above associated with claim 1] extending from the offset portion.
With respect to claim 5 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose a flare stack [reference character 10 of Straitz] attached to the shell, wherein the flare stack and the exhaust portion are substantially parallel.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitz III (US 3,822,984, hereinafter Straitz) in view of Jin-Shan (CN 106610017 A, machine translated) and further in view of Christenson (US 5,441,404).
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Straitz and Jin-Shan do not disclose a first plurality of risers at least partially arrayed about the ignitor shaft for conducting high pressure gas from a first high pressure inlet to a combustion chamber partially defined by the exhaust portion of the shell.
Christenson discloses a flare burner that includes disclose a first plurality of risers [reference character 34] at least partially arrayed about the center of the flare for conducting high pressure gas from a first high pressure inlet [reference character 26] to a combustion chamber [the area above nozzles 38] partially defined by the exhaust portion of a shell [reference character 30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare taught by the combination of Straitz and Jin-Shan by providing risers around the periphery of the of the interior of the flare, as taught by Christenson, in order to provide fuel gas uniformly around the flare.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitz III (US 3,822,984, hereinafter Straitz) in view of Jin-Shan (CN 106610017 A, machine translated) and further in view of Rajewski (US 5,749,719).
With respect to claim 9 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose a shield attached to the shell and partially defining the combustion chamber.
Rajewski discloses a flare stack having a shield [reference character 16] attached to a shell [reference character 14] and partially defining a combustion chamber [the space between the tip of the flare, 36, and the tip of the shield 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare taught by the combination of Straitz and Jin-Shan by including the Shield taught by Rajewski in order to prevent wind from affecting the flame [column 1 lines 20-46 of Rajewski].
With respect to claim 10 the combination of Straitz, Jin-Shan, and Rajewski disclose that an upper edge of the shield extends above an upper edge of the exhaust portion. In Rajewski the tip of the shield extends above the tip of the flare.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitz III (US 3,822,984, hereinafter Straitz) in view of Jin-Shan (CN 106610017 A, machine translated) and further in view of Christenson (US 5,441,404).
With respect to claim 15 Straitz discloses a hybrid flare assembly for waste gas combustion, comprising: a shell [reference character 11] defining a duct, the shell including an exhaust portion extending from an offset portion [see annotated Fig. above associated with claim 1].
Straitz does not disclose an ignitor for igniting the waste gas, the ignitor mounted to a shaft for longitudinal movement within the exhaust portion.
Jin-Shan discloses a burner system having a high energy igniter [reference character 17] mounted to a shaft [reference character 18] that extends through the center of a burner tube [reference character 22] and is positioned for longitudinal movement within the burner tube allowing the igniter to be retracted from the combustion zone after ignition to prevent the igniter from being burned2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare stack taught by Straitz by including the retractable igniter taught by Jin-Shan, in order to prevent the igniter from being burned [see pp. 5 of the machine translation of Jin-Shan].
The combination of Straitz and Jin-Shan do not disclose a first plurality of risers at least partially arrayed about the ignitor shaft for conducting high pressure gas from a first high pressure inlet to a combustion chamber.
Christenson discloses a flare burner that includes disclose a first plurality of risers [reference character 34] at least partially arrayed about the center of the flare for conducting high pressure gas from a first high pressure inlet [reference character 26] to a combustion chamber [the area above nozzles 38] partially defined by the exhaust portion of a shell [reference character 30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare taught by the combination of Straitz and Jin-Shan by providing risers around the periphery of the of the interior of the flare, as taught by Christenson, in order to provide fuel gas uniformly around the flare.
With respect to claim 16 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose that the exhaust portion of the shell partially defines a combustion chamber [reference character 7 of Jin-Shan] and the ignitor is supported within the combustion chamber.
With respect to claim 17 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose a flare stack [reference character 10 of Straitz] attached to the shell.
With respect to claim 18 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose a guide tube [reference character 10 of Jin-Shan] within which the ignitor and ignitor shaft move.
With respect to claim 20 Straitz, Jin-Shan, and Christenson a first plurality of risers at least partially arrayed about the ignitor shaft for conducting high pressure gas from a first high pressure inlet to a combustion chamber [see rejection for claim 15 and 112(d) rejection above].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitz III (US 3,822,984, hereinafter Straitz) in view of Jin-Shan (CN 106610017 A, machine translated) in view of Christenson (US 5,441,404) and further in view of Rajewski (US 5,749,719).
With respect to claim 19 Straitz, Jin-Shan, and Christenson disclose a shield attached to the shell and partially defining the combustion chamber.
Rajewski discloses a flare stack having a shield [reference character 16] attached to a shell [reference character 14] and partially defining a combustion chamber [the space between the tip of the flare, 36, and the tip of the shield 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare taught by the combination of Straitz, Jin-Shan, and Christenson by including the Shield taught by Rajewski in order to prevent wind from affecting the flame [column 1 lines 20-46 of Rajewski].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitz III (US 3,822,984, hereinafter Straitz) in view of Jin-Shan (CN 106610017 A, machine translated) and further in view of Christenson (US 5,441,404).
With respect to claim 23 Straitz discloses a hybrid flare assembly for waste gas combustion, comprising: a flare stack [reference character 10]; a shell [reference character 11] attached to and extending from the flare stack, defining a duct, and including an offset portion and an exhaust portion [see annotated Fig. above associated with claim 1].
Straitz does not disclose an ignitor for igniting the waste gas, the ignitor mounted to a shaft for longitudinal movement within the exhaust portion.
Jin-Shan discloses a burner system having a high energy igniter [reference character 17] mounted to a shaft [reference character 18] that extends through the center of a burner tube [reference character 22] and is positioned for longitudinal movement within the burner tube allowing the igniter to be retracted from the combustion zone after ignition to prevent the igniter from being burned3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare stack taught by Straitz by including the retractable igniter taught by Jin-Shan, in order to prevent the igniter from being burned [see pp. 5 of the machine translation of Jin-Shan].
The combination of Straitz and Jin-Shan do not disclose a first plurality of risers at least partially arrayed about the ignitor shaft for conducting high pressure gas from a first high pressure inlet to a combustion chamber.
Christenson discloses a flare burner that includes disclose a first plurality of risers [reference character 34] at least partially arrayed about the center of the flare for conducting high pressure gas from a first high pressure inlet [reference character 26] to a combustion chamber [the area above nozzles 38] partially defined by the exhaust portion of a shell [reference character 30].
With respect to claim 26 Straitz discloses that the flare stack and the exhaust portion are substantially parallel and the intermediate portion4 is angled relative to the exhaust portion [see Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 28 Straitz and Jin-Shan disclose that the exhaust portion of the shell partially defines a combustion chamber [reference character 7 of Jin-Shan] and the ignitor is centrally supported within the combustion chamber.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitz III (US 3,822,984, hereinafter Straitz) in view of Jin-Shan (CN 106610017 A, machine translated) in view of Christenson (US 5,441,404) and further in view of Rajewski (US 5,749,719).
With respect to claim 29 Straitz, Jin-Shan, and Christenson disclose a shield attached to the shell and partially defining the combustion chamber.
Rajewski discloses a flare stack having a shield [reference character 16] attached to a shell [reference character 14] and partially defining a combustion chamber [the space between the tip of the flare, 36, and the tip of the shield 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the flare taught by the combination of Straitz, Jin-Shan, and Christenson by including the Shield taught by Rajewski in order to prevent wind from affecting the flame [column 1 lines 20-46 of Rajewski].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 11-14, 21-22, and 24-25 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
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 “High-energy igniter 17 enters in the oil fog gun 11, when ignition is completed, after high-energy igniter 17 move behind the gun nozzle and prevent high-energy igniter 17 to be burned…” [pp. 5 of the machine translation of Jin-Shan].
2 “High-energy igniter 17 enters in the oil fog gun 11, when ignition is completed, after high-energy igniter 17 move behind the gun nozzle and prevent high-energy igniter 17 to be burned…” [pp. 5 of the machine translation].
3 “High-energy igniter 17 enters in the oil fog gun 11, when ignition is completed, after high-energy igniter 17 move behind the gun nozzle and prevent high-energy igniter 17 to be burned…” [pp. 5 of the machine translation].
4 Interpreted as “the offset portion”, see 112(b) rejection above.
Prosecution Insights