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
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tuyere must be shown or the feature canceled from claims 25 and 26. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a system for automatically controlling the ignition and flame control of a burner” in claim 16;
“an ignition device” in claim 27;
“a combustion-signalling device” in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 recites “a tuyere” which should be -the tuyere- as introduced in claim 25. 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 16-18, 22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iatrides (US 5743723 A), hereinafter Iatrides, in view of Smirnov (US 20140080072 A1), hereinafter Smirnov.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Iatrides discloses an oxy-fuel burner adapted to be housed within a wall of a melting furnace (“Oxy-fuel burners having coaxial passages for supply of fuel and oxygen, which are used for example, in glass melting furnaces” column 1, line 10), the oxy-fuel burner comprising:
a housing (“an oxy-fuel burner 10” column 3, line 66), which defines an oxidizing-agent supply channel running in a longitudinal direction, from an upstream end to a downstream end of the housing and having an oxidizing-agent outlet port at the downstream end of the housing (“outer oxidant tube 12” column 6, line 14),
a fuel supply channel extending in the longitudinal direction of the housing and having a fuel outlet port located at the downstream end of the housing (“fuel tube 14” column 6, line 14),
an oxidant injector extending in the longitudinal direction inside the fuel supply channel and having an oxidant outlet port located at the downstream end of the housing (“inner oxidant tube 16” column 6, line 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iatrides does not disclose an ignition and flame-control electrode extending inside the oxidizing-agent supply channel and adapted to provide initial ignition of the burner and subsequent control of a burner flame, wherein said ignition and flame-control electrode is adapted to be connected to a system for automatically controlling the ignition and flame control of a burner, wherein the ignition and flame-control electrode is an ionisation electrode.
However, Smirnov teaches an ignition and flame-control electrode extending inside the oxidizing-agent supply channel and adapted to provide initial ignition of the burner and subsequent control of a burner flame, wherein said ignition and flame-control electrode is adapted to be connected to a system for automatically controlling the ignition and flame control of a burner, wherein the ignition and flame-control electrode is an ionisation electrode (“sensor 46 can be any suitable sensor and can be disposed in any suitable location. In one embodiment, the sensor 46 is embodied as an ultra-violet radiation or flame detector 69 that is disposed to sense for the presence of a flame” paragraph [0023] and “The stabilization device or a suitable igniter, such as a spark rod, hot surface igniter, direct spark igniter, plasma igniter, electrical arc igniter, field igniter, pilot light igniter, and the like, can be activated by the controller 34 to ignite the fuel/air mixture in the burner combustion chamber 26 based on, or in response to, a signal provided by an ultra-violet detector, flame rod, or other type of flame sensor 69” paragraph [0030] emphasis added).
PNG
media_image3.png
406
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
476
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
564
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Smirnov’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 an ignition and flame-control electrode extending inside the oxidizing-agent supply channel and adapted to provide initial ignition of the burner and subsequent control of a burner flame, wherein said ignition and flame-control electrode is adapted to be connected to a system for automatically controlling the ignition and flame control of a burner, wherein the ignition and flame-control electrode is an ionisation electrode as is taught in Smirnov, in the oxy-fuel burner disclosed by Iatrides because Smirnov states “This on-demand ignition, which can be activated continuously, can provide stable combustion occurring in the burner while the flame mode operation is active” (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, including the structure of Smirnov will improve combustion stability.
Regarding claim 18, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 16, wherein the oxidant injector is adapted to supply oxidant at a subsonic velocity (“the oxidant velocity through the inner oxidant outlet 28 should be in the range of about 10 to 200 m/s” column 4, line 23).
Regarding claim 22, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 16, wherein the fuel is natural gas (“the fuel is preferably natural gas” column 4, line 28).
Regarding claim 24, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 16, wherein the distance (L1) from the downstream extremity of the oxygen injector to the downstream extremity of the housing of the burner is equal to the outer diameter (d) of the oxidant injector (“the inner oxidant outlet 28 is preferably set back into the fuel tube a distance which is not greater than the diameter of the inner oxidant tube D1” column 6, line 41. See also figure 15).
PNG
media_image6.png
188
292
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, does not explicitly disclose the distance (L2) from the downstream extremity of the ignition and flame-control electrode to the downstream extremity of the housing of the burner is equal to 0.5d. 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, Smirnov teaches an electrode positioned a distance from the downstream extremity of the housing, but does not specifically recite 0.5d. Achieving 0.5d is a results-effective variable because the electrode should be placed so as to sense flame. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance, because the selection of distance to achieve flame sensing constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 25, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 16, adapted to be fitted into a tuyere located in the wall of a melting furnace, wherein the distance from the downstream extremity of the housing of the burner to the downstream extremity of the tuyere is between 2D and 3D, where D is the inner diameter of the tuyere (“The cylindrical hole 42 opens into a burner block cavity 44 or combustion chamber with an inner geometry which may take the form of any one of the shapes which are shown in FIGS. 4-8, i.e., conical, cylindrical, gradually stepped or other known shapes” column 6, line 56. 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 the present case, one or more of the embodiments of Iatrides is at least close to the claimed relationship based on the figures).
PNG
media_image7.png
282
528
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
252
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 25.
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, does not disclose the oxy-fuel burner adapted to be fitted into a tuyere having a blast supply flow rate of 700-1,200 m3/hr at a temperature of 250-650°C. 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, Iatrides discloses a blast supply flow rate and temperature, but does not disclose the claimed ranges. Achieving the claimed blast supply flow rate is a results-effective variable because the Iatrides states “The above-described burner 10 configuration enables various characteristics of the flame to be effectively controlled by changing the relative flow rates of the fuel and oxidant flows” (Column 4, line 53). Achieving the claimed temperature is a results-effective variable because the Iatrides states “high flame peak temperatures found in high momentum flames are thus avoided, and less nitrogen oxides (NOx) are formed” (column 5, line 30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the flow rate and temperature, because the selection of flow rate and temperature to desired flame characteristics and reduced NOx constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses a system for automatically controlling the ignition and flame control of the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 1.
Smirnov further teaches wherein said system comprises:
an ignition device, wherein the ignition device is a high voltage transformer source (“direct spark igniter 98 is a device that uses electrical power at a high voltage or that includes a voltage multiplier coil 100 associated with a spark-producing tip 102 that provide electrical arcing that serves to ignite a combustible mixture” paragraph [0035] emphasis added);
a combustion-signalling device (“A sensor 46, such as a flame sensor, or the like, may be present to continuously monitor the presence of a flame within the burner combustion chamber 26, and to communicate such data to the controller 34… In one embodiment, the sensor 46 is embodied as an ultra-violet radiation or flame detector 69 that is disposed to sense for the presence of a flame directly within the combustor chamber 26” paragraph [0023]);
a cut-off valves unit, designed with the ability to be connected to a gas-oxygen unit which regulates the flows of fuel, oxidizing agent, oxidant and instrument air and supplies same to the burner (“An oxidant control valve 32 is used to control the flow of oxidant… A fuel control valve 42 is used to control the flow of fuel gas” paragraph [0022]); and
a control unit designed with the ability to communicate with the gas-oxygen unit, the ignition device, the combustion-signalling device and the cut-off valves unit (“the oxidant control valve 32 may be operatively connected to a controller 34 such as a PLC, computer, or the like which opens or closes the oxidant control valve 32 in accordance with pre-established commands based on conditions in the furnace/radiant tube and/or the burner… the fuel control valve 42 may be operatively connected to the controller 34, which adjusts fuel feed in accordance with pre-established commands based on conditions in the furnace, radiant tube, and/or the burner” paragraph [0022] and “the controller 34 may utilize the data from the sensor 46 in combination with temperature data from the furnace/radiant tube to control the burner” paragraph [0023]).
In view of Smirnov’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 the features as taught in Smirnov, in the oxy-fuel burner disclosed by Iatrides because Smirnov states “This on-demand ignition, which can be activated continuously, can provide stable combustion occurring in the burner while the flame mode operation is active” (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, including the structure of Smirnov will improve combustion stability.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iatrides, in view of Smirnov, and further in view of Gitman (US 4642047 A), hereinafter Gitman.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 16.
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, does not disclose wherein the oxidant injector is adapted to supply oxidant at a supersonic velocity, wherein the oxidant injector is equipped with a de Laval nozzle.
However, Gitman teaches wherein the oxidant injector is adapted to supply oxidant at a supersonic velocity, wherein the oxidant injector is equipped with a de Laval nozzle (“To increase the ability of the jet of excess oxygen to penetrate into the material being heated, the oxygen jet can be blown through a converging-diverging nozzle 17 with supersonic velocity. This will also reduce dilution of oxygen with the combustion product and the furnace atmospher” column 7, line 20).
PNG
media_image9.png
376
434
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of Gitman’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 oxidant injector is adapted to supply oxidant at a supersonic velocity, wherein the oxidant injector is equipped with a de Laval nozzle as is taught in Gitman, in the oxy-fuel burner disclosed by Iatrides because Gitman states A high velocity oxy-fuel flame or an oxygen jet penetration into the core of a relatively cold oil or coal flame will superheat said core, therefore increasing the radiative heat flux of the micro-particles of carbon existing in such flame core without overheating the burner body (column 1, line 59). Therefore, including the features of Gitman will increase radiative heat flux in the burner of Iatrides.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iatrides, in view of Smirnov, and further in view of Brahmbhatt (US 4931013 A), hereinafter Brahmbhatt.
Regarding claim 21, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 16.
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, does not disclose wherein the concentration of oxygen in the oxidant introduced through the oxidant injector is higher than the concentration of oxygen in the oxidizing agent introduced through the oxidizing-agent supply channel.
However, Brahmbhatt teaches wherein the concentration of oxygen in the oxidant introduced through the oxidant injector is higher than the concentration of oxygen in the oxidizing agent introduced through the oxidizing-agent supply channel (“When the combustion air is enriched to a level of 26% oxygen, and the lance of pure oxygen, is used, it turns out that the effective oxygen percentage is about 35%, and the flame temperature is about 4000° F. Although the latter temperature is lower than the temperature of a pure-oxygen fuel burner, the net benefits are comparable to those achieved with pure oxygen. Moreover, the costs of building and operating the burner are substantially less than those of burners of the prior art” column 2, line 55).
PNG
media_image10.png
470
818
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of Brahmbhatt’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 concentration of oxygen in the oxidant introduced through the oxidant injector is higher than the concentration of oxygen in the oxidizing agent introduced through the oxidizing-agent supply channel as is taught in Brahmbhatt, in the oxy-fuel burner disclosed by Iatrides because Brahmbhatt states that the configuration achieves performance comparable to pure oxygen burners where the costs of building and operating the burner are substantially less than those of burners of the prior art.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iatrides, in view of Smirnov, and further in view of Sanchez-Molinero (US 20100183989 A1), hereinafter Sanchez-Molinero.
Regarding claim 23, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses the oxy-fuel burner according to Claim 16.
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, does not explicitly disclose wherein said burner contains an earth electrode positioned at a distance of 3-4 mm, in a transverse direction, from the ignition and flame-control electrode, wherein the downstream extremities of the earth electrode and the ignition and flame-control electrode are positioned at an equal distance from the downstream extremity of the housing of the burner.
However, Sanchez-Molinero teaches wherein said burner contains an earth electrode positioned at a distance in a transverse direction, from the ignition and flame-control electrode, wherein the downstream extremities of the earth electrode and the ignition and flame-control electrode are positioned at an equal distance from the downstream extremity of the housing of the burner (“An electrode 7a, connected to a current source and suitably isolated electrically, except at its end, is placed at the centre of the first tube 2. It is located on the axis of the tube 2, its stripped end lying level with the open end 2a of the first tube 2. The second tube 3 has a counter electrode 7b located at its outlet, in electrical contact with said tube 3. It also ensures electrical continuity with earth. The two electrodes 7a and 7b are placed so as to produce, between said electrodes 7a and 7b, an electric arc or a spark 7c capable of igniting the flame of the pilot burner 1” paragraph [0084]).
PNG
media_image11.png
350
520
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, does not disclose the claimed type electrode igniter configuration. Sanchez-Molinero teaches the claimed electrode igniter configuration. The substitution of one known element (the electrode igniter configuration taught by Smirnov) for another (the electrode igniter configuration taught by Sanchez-Molinero) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the electrode igniter configuration taught in Sanchez-Molinero would have yielded predictable results, namely, a configuration for igniting the air and fuel Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov and Sanchez-Molinero, does not disclose the transverse distance of 3-4 mm. 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, Sanchez-Molinero teaches a spark gap, but does not specifically recite 3-4 mm. Achieving 3-4 mm is a results-effective variable because spark gap distance is related to the amount of energy required to create a spark, and if the distance is too great an unnecessarily high voltage will be required. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the gap distance, because the selection of gap distance to achieve reduced voltage requirements constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iatrides, in view of Smirnov, in view of Stover (FR 2476630 A1), hereinafter Stover, and further in view of Anderson (US 20110250548 A1), hereinafter Anderson.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, discloses a method for controlling the ignition and flame control of oxy-fuel burners, fitted in a melting furnace, using the system according to Claim 16.
Smirnov further teaches which method comprises steps in which:
a signal is received confirming that the gas-oxygen unit has been switched on (Start in figure 12);
cut-off valves in the cut-off valves unit are opened for the supply of fuel oxidizing agent and oxidant to the selected burners (Step 302);
spark ignition of the selected burners is switched on (Step 301);
spark ignition is switched off (Step 316);
the flame in the burners is monitored (Step 304), during which monitoring process:
the presence of a flame in each burner is determined, wherein, when a flame is found to be present in all the burners, operation is continued (Step 306).
In view of Smirnov’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 the features as taught in Smirnov, in the oxy-fuel burner disclosed by Iatrides because Smirnov states “This on-demand ignition, which can be activated continuously, can provide stable combustion occurring in the burner while the flame mode operation is active” (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, including the structure of Smirnov will improve combustion stability.
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov, does not disclose:
the number of burners requiring to be put into operation is determined;
if a flame is found to be absent in one or more of the burners, spark ignition is switched on in the corresponding burner;
a tally is maintained of the number of unsuccessful attempts to ignite the burners, wherein, if said number is greater than a specified value, supply of gas, oxidizing agent and oxidant to the corresponding burner is halted, wherein the specified value of the number of unsuccessful attempts to ignite the burners is equal to five.
However, Stover teaches the number of burners requiring to be put into operation is determined (“As is common to furnaces of this type, the burners of each of the series 19 and 20 are placed at intervals of each other along the sides 14 and 15, respectively, of the furnace, and the number of burners used. is determined according to a predetermined maximum melting capacity established for the furnace 10” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of Stover’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 the number of burners requiring to be put into operation is determined as is taught in Stover, in the oxy-fuel burner disclosed by Iatrides because the court has held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, Stover shows that adjusting the number of burners based on required melting capacity is needed and therefore not a patentable advance.
Iatrides, as modified by Smirnov and Stover, does not disclose:
if a flame is found to be absent in one or more of the burners, spark ignition is switched on in the corresponding burner;
a tally is maintained of the number of unsuccessful attempts to ignite the burners, wherein, if said number is greater than a specified value, supply of gas, oxidizing agent and oxidant to the corresponding burner is halted, wherein the specified value of the number of unsuccessful attempts to ignite the burners is equal to five.
However, Anderson teaches:
if a flame is found to be absent in one or more of the burners, spark ignition is switched on in the corresponding burner (“If the voltage level has increased to a "normal" voltage level range, the controller may retry ignition of the burner assembly in block 112” paragraph [0043]);
a tally is maintained of the number of unsuccessful attempts to ignite the burners, wherein, if said number is greater than a specified value, supply of gas, oxidizing agent and oxidant to the corresponding burner is halted, wherein the specified value of the number of unsuccessful attempts to ignite the burners is equal to five (“the controller 48 can track the number of consecutive failed ignition attempts using a counter, however, other systems or methods for tracking the number of consecutive failed ignition attempts may be used. In the illustrative example, after the controller determined the ignition attempt failed in decision block 114, in block 116, the controller may increase a value of a counter. In the illustrative embodiment, counter may be reset to one after each successful ignition is detected. Then, in block 118, the controller may determine if the counter value is greater than a predefined number of failed ignition attempts, which may be two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or any other number of consecutive failed ignition attempts. If the counter is greater than the predefined number of failed ignition attempts, the controller enters the hard lockout state of block 106” paragraph [0045]).
PNG
media_image12.png
722
342
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In view of Anderson’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 the steps as is taught in Anderson, in the oxy-fuel burner as presently modified because Anderson states “failed ignition may be the result of a condition that does not necessarily impact the ability of the appliance to safely operate in the future. One example condition may be a temporary drop in the line voltage provided to the burner (e.g. burner motor). Accordingly, there is a need for new and improved systems and methods for selectively controlling the lockout of fuel fired appliances after one or more failed ignition trials” (paragraph [0004]). Therefore, including the teachings of Anderson will improve safety without undue inconvenience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hura (US 5655899 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
484
570
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Nolte (US 5899683 A) “The control circuit 7 counts the attempts at ignition of the automatic control unit 9 and then opens the circuit breaker 12 after a certain time, e.g., 10 sec after the end of the fourth attempt, so that the automatic control unit 9 will now also close the safety valve 10 for safety. A high level of safety of operation is thus achieved”
Legiret (US 6190158 B1)
PNG
media_image14.png
390
564
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Bodelin (US 6332340 B1)
PNG
media_image15.png
378
712
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Scimone (US 20100009306 A1) “flame detection, for instance by means of a ionisation electrode the second tube 3, provided for the passage of comburent gas”
PNG
media_image16.png
314
778
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Orita (TW 201319469 A)
PNG
media_image17.png
374
692
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Langius (US 20170292698 A1) uses “a flame rod 13” and “the ionization sensor 13” interchangeably
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