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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble of the claims contain all uppercase and bold print regarding the low NOx burner or the method of operating. Appropriate correction is required.
The text should all be the same font and abide by standard sentence structure.
Claims 2-3, 6-10 are further objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, “the outer diameter (D) … and the inner diameter (D’)”, in lines 2-3 lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 3, “the deflection angle”, in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 6, “the diameter (D’), lines 2-3, lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 7, “the relation of the dimensions”, in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. In claim 8, “the distance (K)…the length (L) in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. In claim 9, “the shape of each fin” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. This is not necessarily a full list of such deficiencies, and each claim should be reviewed. The claims are not indefinite because the figures clarify where certain structures exist. For example, regarding claim 2, figure 1 shows the diameters (D), (D’).
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the relation of the dimensions (M)/(N)" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim is indefinite because there is no mention of “the relation of the dimensions (M)/(N) in the specification. On page 8, paragraph 0035 of the applicant’s specification there is a description of “The ratio of the dimensions (M)/(N)” which is clearly seen in Figure 6, which implies that N has a greater length then M in the range of 2 to 4 times greater, which is how the claim will be interpreted. It is believed that one of ordinary skill could interpret “the relation of the dimensions” and “the ratio of dimensions” differently then what is intended with regard to the drawings.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the diameter" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is considered indefinite because it is unclear which diameter is being referred to, e.g. outer diameter (D) or inner diameter (D’). Since the fins are located at the inner part of said collector ring as recited in claim 1, the interpretation will be that of inner diameter (D’) regarding claim 10.
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 Blockley et al [3017920], further in view of Hindenlang [3830172].
With respect to claim 1, Blockley discloses: A LOW NOX EMISSION BURNER, comprising burner for applying to heating process predominantly in iron ore pelletizing furnaces (FO) with low NOx emission comprising a collector ring (10, 60) with openings (70) for mixing fuel gas with an oxidant and formation of flames for direct heating of a circulating gaseous medium [col 3, line 45-col 4, line 9]; wherein the fuel gas discharge is executed through a collector ring (60) provided with multiple openings (70) for mixing the fuel gas with oxidant and flame formation [col 2, line 28-43]; the collector ring being equipped with at least one input (62) for fuel gas supply [col 2, line 55-65];
The claim is given weight to the limitations regarding the burner. Any recitation of the iron ore pelletizing furnaces is taken into consideration, however is given the context of intended use. Therefore, any recitation of the descending flow is given the broadest interpretation of flow downstream of an incoming mixture; if the structure is present then one of ordinary skill would understand the possible orientations of the burner to properly conform to the specific type of furnace, e.g. a furnace downcomer.
Blockley shows the use of baffles (38) for guiding a flow of combustion reactants [see FIG 1].
Blockley further shows:
{cl. 2} The LOW NOX EMISSION BURNER, according to claim 1, wherein fuel gas collector (60) comprises a ring shape, manufactured with a circular or rectangular section, the outer diameter of the collector ring being reduced relative to the inner diameter of a descending passage [see FIG 3]
Blockely however does not show the full context of the fins as further claimed.
Hindenlang makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 1, cont’d } said ring (41) being, additionally, equipped with fins (40) installed on the inner part of said collector in (a) angulation relative to the a horizontal plane of the collector ring deflecting part of a descending flow of circulating hot air diluted with the combustion gases originating from burning the fuel gas in a vertical direction to the horizontal resulting in a speed vector obtaining the a tangential component and which in the cylindrical profile of a descending channel generates a rotation or a swirling effect [see FIG 3, col 4, line 55-col 5, line 11].
Hindelang further teaches:
{cl. 3} The LOW NOX EMISSION BURNER, according to claim 1, wherein the deflection angle (a) of the fin being between 30° to 60° relative to the horizontal transversal plane of the fuel gas collector ring [see FIG 4].
{cl. 4} TheLOW NOX EMISSION BURNER, according to claim 1, wherein each fin being is modelled in 'L' profile with a flap in 90(p) angle [see FIG 4].
{cl. 5} The LOW NOX EMISSION BURNER, according to claim 4 wherein and the angle varying varies from about 450 to 90° [see FIG 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blockely to include the baffle arrangement as taught by Hindenlang because Hindenlang provides as specific shaped baffle to impart a cyclone effect of air to ensure proper distribution of air.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blockley et al [3017920], in view of Hindenlang [3830172], further in view of Kamikawa et al [8961650].
With respect to claim 12, Blockley in view of Hindenlang substantially teach the invention as claimed, e.g.: An OPERATING METHOD FOR REDUCING NOX FORMATION APPLIED TO IRON ORE PELLET SINTERING AND/OR ENDURING METHOD, according to claim 1, wherein said method comprising the steps: - the fuel gas jets are discharged from the plurality of openings (70) to be mixed with an oxidant flow which can be predominantly a flow of low or high temperature gases, which circulates [col 2, line 28-43], in the iron ore pellet furnace (FO) for heating the pellets during the sintering or hardening process; - the fuel jets mixed with oxidant form a jet or jets of flame, which are mixing and directly heating a circulating process flow [col 3, line 45-col 4, line 9], however does not show the method as further claimed.
Kamikawa makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 12, cont’d} circulating (the flow), in the iron ore pellet furnace (FO) for heating the pellets during the sintering or hardening process; - the fuel jets mixed with oxidant form a jet or jets of flame, which are mixing and directly heating a circulating process flow [col 8, line 49-col 9, line 2]; and- circulating process flow , which is the descending flow in iron ore pelletizing furnace (FO), containing nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapor are heated until the temperatures required by the process [col 7, line 33-45], continuing through the iron ore pellet bed, transferring the required heat for the occurrence of the necessary chemical reactions and physical transformations in the pellets [see abstract, FIG 2A, col 1, line 33-43, col 7, line 46-col 8, line 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blockely to include the processing step of Kamikawa because Kamikawa provides a known circulating process that allows for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by properly regulating the temperature of the furnace.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 and 13-17 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. The limitations require certain dimensions that require criticality, and the prior art is silent to the needs of the limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
11/12/2025