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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 5, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 3 requires “injector three discharge openings” and should require “injector comprises three discharge openings”,
Claim 5 line 2 require “wherein distance” and should require “wherein a distance”,
Claim 10 line 15 requires “acombustor” and should require “a combustor”,
Claim 12 line 3 requires “and number of discharge openings arranged”, and should require “and a number of discharge openings are arranged”,
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inlet and outlet openings" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mounting flanges" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the combustion air to the external body" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the external tube" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the annular space" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pre-arranged angles" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the air passages" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 5 requires “which includes a plurality of fins…”, however it is unclear what includes the plurality of fins. The only previously recited structure is the external body which, on the basis of the applicant’s drawings, does not include a plurality of fins. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring “an external tube which includes a plurality of fins distributed on its external face”.
Claim 2 requires that “…the height of the gas injectors can vary in the direction of the flow, such as, gradually…” The term “gradually” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring that each subsequent injector in the downstream direction has an additional discharge opening, consistent with the subsequent clause of the claim.
Claim 3 requires that “…discharge openings in each injector can vary…” (emphasis added). The use of the verb “can” suggest that limitation is optional and not required. For the purposes of examination, and in the interest of BRI, the claim is interpreted as not positively requiring the limitations attached to “can vary”. If the applicant intends to positively claim this limitation the examiner suggests the following language “…discharge openings in each injector varies…”.
Claim 4 requires that “there may be three or less in number” of injectors arranged in a row along the air current movement direction. At the outset, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, explicitly requires “at least three fuel gas injectors” consequently claim 4 cannot require less than three fuel gas injectors. Therefore, “there may be three or less in number” is interpreted as “there may be three or more in number”. Furthermore, the use of the “may” suggests that limitation is optional and not required. For the purposes of examination, and in the interest of BRI, the claim is interpreted as not positively requiring the limitations attached to “may be”.
Claim 5 requires that “…the injectors can vary…” (emphasis added). The use of the verb “can” suggest that limitation is optional and not required. For the purposes of examination, and in the interest of BRI, the claim is interpreted as not positively requiring the limitations attached to “can vary”. If the applicant intends to positively claim this limitation the examiner suggests the following language “…the injectors vary…”.
Claim 6 requires “the first injector is shorter in height (H1); the third injector which end presents greater height (H3); the second injector arranged between the first and third injectors having intermediary height (H2)” (emphasis added). The emphasized statement is unclear. The examiner suggests the following language “…the first injector has a first height (H1), the second injector has a second height (H2), and the third injector has a third height (H3), wherein the second height is greater than the first height, and the third height is greater than the second height”.
Claim 7 requires that “…the number of openings and diameter (d) can vary…” (emphasis added). The use of the verb “can” suggest that limitation is optional and not required. For the purposes of examination, and in the interest of BRI, the claim is interpreted as not positively requiring the limitations attached to “can vary”. If the applicant intends to positively claim this limitation the examiner suggests the following language “…the number of openings and diameter (d) varies…”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ports" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “the openings”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the burner axis" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the tangential line" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the injector with height (H1)”, “the tallest injector (H3)”, and “the injector with height (H2)” in lines 3, 6, and 7, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. The heights and their associated injectors have not been introduced in either claims 8 or claim 1, from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 9 introduces “an external body” in line 3. Since claim 1 already introduced “an external body” it is unclear if the applicant is aiming to claim a new external body or referring to the one previously claimed.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the conical element" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the inlet" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outlet side" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 introduces “a plurality of fins” in line 10. Since claim 1 already introduced “a plurality of fins” it is unclear if the applicant is aiming to claim a new plurality of fins or referring to the one previously claimed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the external body" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the fins" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the annular channel" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the short injector”, “the average height injector (H2)” and “the tallest injector (H3)” in lines 2 and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. The heights and their associated injectors have not been introduced in either claim 15 or claim 10, from which claim 15 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perry et. al (US 2007/0207426 A1).
With respect to claim 10 Perry discloses A RAPID FUEL MIXING METHOD, comprising a rapid mixing method with elevated excess air to produce ultralow NOx emission which comprises: - phase 1 - supply of combustion air to the external body [reference character 56] which flows through the passages [reference character 130] of the fins forming an air current with intense rotational components; the fuel gas being provided through the annular channel which is formed by two coaxial tubes [reference characters 26 and 66]; the external tube having perforations [reference character 84], and over these perforations the gas injectors [reference character 83] are installed; each injector having orifices [reference character 80] which discharge the gas in the combustion air current; - phase 2- the fuel gas flows through the openings of the injectors and is discharged in the passages of the fins of the a turbulator [the entire structure containing the fins] to be evenly distributed around the circumference and within the rotational air flow, and further to mix rapidly and completely thereto; - phase 3 - the completely mixed mixture is subsequently inflamed and stabilized in the conical element [reference character 113] and next in the acombustor; the stabilization mechanism is by means of the recirculation of hot combustion products moving in the opposite direction of the flame from the combustor into the conical element [see reference character 18]; said hot combustion products will constantly relight the mixture of fuel gas/air originating from the passages of the fins; -phase 4- the nature of the flame stabilization if s reignition aerodynamic effect [see paragraph 0027].
With respect to claim 11 Perry discloses that the method further comprises the discharge and mixture of fuel gas with air in a lower pressure zone created along the external curve of the fin [see Fig. 4, the decrease in area at the injectors would accelerate the flow and therefore result in a decrease in pressure].
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, 3-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry et. al (US 2007/0207426 A1) in view of Patel et. al (US 2017/0298884 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Perry discloses A COMBUSTION SYSTEM WITH ULTRALOW NOX EMISSION, comprising an external body [reference character 56] with cylindrical shape [see annotated Fig. below] with the mounting flanges [see annotated Fig. below] arranged on the inlet and outlet openings; said external body being equipped with an air entry [see “air supply” in Fig. 2] having rectangular or cylindrical or any other appropriate shape to deliver the combustion air to the external body [see Fig. 2]; which includes a plurality of fins [reference character 70] distributed on the external face [reference character 75] of the external tube [reference character 66], which comprises a plurality of orifices [reference character 84]; wherein each fin comprises a fuel gas injector [reference character 83], which are mounted on the corresponding orifices communicant with the annular space [reference character 166]; each injector having a plurality of openings [reference character 80] which discharge the fuel gas (FG) in the combustion air flow under the pre-arranged angles [see Fig. 4]; said fuel gas injectors being positioned inside the air passages and supported in the direction of the curvature surface of the fins [see Fig. 4]; the fuel discharge openings being positioned in an aerodynamic cavity with lower pressure due to the curvature of the fins; said discharge openings of the injectors being duly distributed so that the gas jets (GJ) are evenly discharged, from the bottom to the top of the passage, in the air current that flows through the passage between the fins.
Perry does not disclose that each fin comprises at least three fuel gas (FG) injectors.
Patel discloses a swirl injector having swirl elements [reference character 52] with 6 rows of injectors [reference character 66] along the length of the swirl element.
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 burner taught by Perry by including six rows of injectors, as taught by Patel, in order to increase the amount of fuel introduced by the injection assembly without increasing the injection velocity.
PNG
media_image1.png
461
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3 the combination of Perry and Patel discloses that the number of fuel (FG) discharge openings in each injector can vary wherein the ratio of the discharge area among the injectors remains the same, whereby the taller the injector, the greater the number of discharge openings1.
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Perry and Patel discloses that said injectors are arranged in a row along the air current movement direction, one after the other, whereby there may be three or less in number [see Figs. 3 of Perry and Fig. 4 of Patel].
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Perry and Patel disclose that a distance (L) between the injectors (48) being able to can vary from 1 to 2 of a diameter (D) of an injector2.
With respect to claim 7 the combination of Perry and Patel discloses that the number of openings and diameter (d) can vary3 depending on the capacity and physical size of the combustion system, wherein, the first injector is equipped with three openings, the second with four openings and the third with five openings; all the ports having the same diameter (d), depending on the size and thermal capacity of the burner; the openings being positioned in a row from the upper wall of the injector while being regularly distributed with a distance (X) between the adjacent ones, which is around 2 to 3 of the diameter (d) of each opening; the fuel gas is discharged through the openings evenly covering the distance from the bottom to the upper part of an air passage.
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 See 112(b) rejection above, since the limitation is interpreted as optional the claim is satisfied despite the combination of Perry and Patel not providing for the optional limitation.
2 See footnote 1.
3 See footnote 1.
Prosecution Insights