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 .
Status of the Claims
In the reply of 4/15/26, the following has occurred:
Claim(s) 19, 22, 25, 29, 32, and 36 is/are amended
Claim(s) 19-36 is/are pending
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the claims have been overcome as per Applicant’s amended claims filed on 4/15/26.
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been overcome as per Applicant’s amended claims filed on 4/15/26.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/15/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gleason.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites, “the exhaust gas is heated by a heat exchanger and/or a solar device or a combustion reactor.” This limitation is being interpreted consistent with p. 5 para. 2 of the Specification, which states, “According to a further embodiment, the exhaust gas is heated by means of a heat exchanger and/or a heating device, in particular an electrical heating device, a solar device or a combustion reactor” Therefore, the claim is being interpreted to at least require one of a heat exchanger, a solar device, or a combustion reactor.
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:
Cooling gas extraction device in claim 24, modified by the functional language of discharging the cooling gas heated in the cooling zone of the shaft, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the cooling gas extraction device in para. 19, “The cooling gas extraction device preferably has a cooling gas outlet for discharging the cooling gas from the shaft.”
And further in para. 38, “The cooling gas extraction device has, according to a further embodiment, a material-free space inside the cooling zone of the shaft. In particular, the material-free space is in the form of an external annular space which extends circumferentially around preferably the upper region of the cooling zone adjacent to the burning zone. In particular, the cooling gas outlet is arranged in the material-free annular space”
Cooling gas extraction device in claim 33, modified by the functional language of “discharging cooling gas from the shaft”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the cooling gas extraction device in paras. 19 and 38, as cited above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 19-27 and 29-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022002869 A1 to Habib, cited in Applicants 10/20/2023 IDS and having an effectively filed date of 7/3/2020, in view of US 20100273121 A1 to Gleason.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Habib.
Regarding claim 19. Habib teaches a method for burning solid material in a parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln (abstract, “The present invention relates to a method for calcining mineral rock in a regenerative parallel-flow vertical shaft furnace”), comprising:
alternately operating a burning shaft and a regenerative shaft (p. 7 para. 2, “As can be seen in figure 1, the illustrated PFRK furnace is a straight double-vat 1, 2 where the fuel is injected alternately into one vat 1 and then into another 2 for approximately 12 'with a period of 'stop between cycles from G to 2' to reverse the circuits. This is the period of "inversion".”) which are connected to one another by a connecting channel (fig. 4, connecting flue 3),
wherein the solid material flows through a material inlet, into a preheating zone for preheating the material, through a burning zone for burning the material, and through a cooling zone for cooling the material to a material outlet (p. 7 para. 2, “The tanks are † divided in height into three zones, the preheating zone A where the carbonate rock is † preheated before calcination, the combustion zone B where the firing of the carbonate rock takes place e † the cooling zone C where the cooling of the calcined material takes place.”);
forming a concurrent burning zone in the burning shaft (p. 7 para. 2, “The carbonate rock, loaded at the top of the tank via an inlet 5 in the open position, gradually descends into the latter. Combustion air is introduced at the top of the tank through a supply opening 6, which allows combustion of the fuel at the outlet of the lances 4 e † decarbonation of the carbonate rock into calcined material 10. The current gas 11 formed by combustion and decarbonation descends in co- --> current of the calcined material and, via the peripheral channel 13, passes into the connecting flue 3.”);
admitting a cooling gas into the cooling zone (p. 7 para. 2, “The cooling air is †, through a supply duct 7, introduced at the bottom of the tank, against -current of the calcined material, to cool it.”);
discharging exhaust gas from one of the shafts via an exhaust gas outlet arranged inside or above the preheating zone (p. 7 para. 3, “After heat exchange with the descending calcined material 10, the heated cooling air mixes with the gas stream 11 which, coming from the connecting flue 3, reaches the tank through the peripheral channel 13. This gas stream 11 progresses to at the top of the bowl where it is evacuated from the oven through an exhaust duct 14 e † transferred to a chimney 15. In the bowl in cooking mode 1, this exhaust duct 14 is † closed.”); and
wherein discharging the exhaust gas from one of the shafts via the exhaust gas outlet is at least partially introduced into at least one of the shafts (as seen in fig. 4 below, a portion of the exhaust gas in exhaust duct 14 is re-routed to the other shaft via the recirculation circuit 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach the inlet including an airtight lock configured to allow the solid material to be introduced while sealing against entry and escape of gases including ambient air.
Gleason teaches an airtight lock (fig. 1, air seal section 22) configured to allow solid material to be introduced while sealing against entry and escape of gases including ambient air (para. 34, “air seal sections 22 that reduce the exchange of air between the heating zone 20 of the oven chamber and the air outside the oven enclosure 12” where it is understood a workpiece enters through the air seal section).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Habib to implement a suitable air seal section, as taught by Gleason. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of reducing the exchange of air between the inside and outside of Habib’s kiln, as suggested by Gleason in para. 34, cited above.
Regarding claim 20. Modified Habib teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the exhaust gas is introduced into the preheating zone of the burning shaft (fig. 4, the exhaust gas in recirculation circuit 18 is shown to be introduced in to the top, or preheating zone, of the burning shaft).
Regarding claim 21. Modified Habib teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the exhaust gas is introduced into the connecting channel and/or into the burning zone of the regenerative shaft (pp. 9-10, “It is also possible to further provide, in the connecting flue 3 and the peripheral channels 13, an injection of a fraction of said part taken from the gaseous effluent discharged from the furnace via an injection pipe 37.”).
Regarding claim 22. Modified Habib teaches the method of claim 21 wherein, before being introduced into the connecting channel or into the burning zone of the regenerative shaft, the exhaust gas is heated to a temperature of 900°C to 1100°C (p. 7 para. 7, the operating temperature of the system is described as being “much higher than 900°C”. Therefore, it is understood that the recirculated gas would be heated to a similar temperature, i.e. above 900°C).
Regarding claim 23. Modified Habib teaches the method of claim 22 wherein, the exhaust gas is heated by a heat exchanger (fig. 4, heat exchanger 36, p. 9 para. 4) and/or a solar device or a combustion reactor (optional limitations, see mapping to alternative).
Regarding claim 24. Modified Habib teaches the method of claim 22 wherein, the cooling gas heated in the cooling zone is discharged from the cooling zone of the shaft via a cooling gas extraction device (fig. 4, withdrawal element 26, p. 9 para. 3).
Regarding claim 25. Modified Habib teaches the method of claim 24 wherein, the cooling gas discharged from the cooling zone is fed to a heat exchanger for heating the exhaust gas (fig. 4, the cooling gas from collecting ring 25 is sent to the heat exchanger 36).
Regarding claim 27. Modified Habib teaches the method of claim 25 wherein, the content of oxygen and/or CO2 in the exhaust gas and/or the cooling gas is determined (p. 8 para. 7 and p. 9 para. 1 describes a process in which the content of oxygen in the cooling gas is determined, cooling gas being air has an oxygen content of 23%, see p. 7 last paragraph, and the exhaust gas is described has having a CO2 and p. 9 para. 1 describes, “a tailor-made CO2 concentration between 40% and 65% by volume of CO2 can be established at the stack by adjusting the amount of cooling air between 100% and 50% of the minimum thermodynamic volume required to cool the stack.”) and
wherein the amount of oxidizing agent fed to the burning shaft (p. 8 para. 9, “.sup.830 Nm 3 / † of gaseous effluent discharged from the furnace, rich in CO2, is taken through the recirculation pipe 18. .sup.160 Nm 3 / † of O2 are mixed with this recirculated effluent, so as to keep in the oxidizing mixture thus formed the same mass concentration of 23% of O2 e † to obtain during combustion the same excess oxygen of 19% by weight relative to stoichiometric requirements.”) and/or the amount of cooling gas discharged from the cooling zone of the shaft via the cooling gas extraction device is controlled (p. 9 para. 1, “The tanks 1 and 2 are each provided, below the connecting flue 3 and the peripheral channels 13, with a collecting ring 25 which communicates with a draw-off element 26 so as to allow extraction of the air from the furnace. heated cooling. In this way, part or all of the combustion air can be withdrawn, if necessary also withdrawing a small proportion of the combustion fumes.”).
Regarding claim 26. Modified Habib teaches the method of claim 19 wherein, an oxidizing agent is fed to the shaft operated as a burning shaft (p. 7 para. 2, “Combustion air is introduced at the top of the tank through a supply opening 6, which allows combustion of the fuel at the outlet of the lances 4 e † decarbonation of the carbonate rock into calcined material 10.”).
Regarding claim 29. Habib teaches a parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln for burning and cooling solid material (abstract, “The present invention relates to a method for calcining mineral rock in a regenerative parallel-flow vertical shaft furnace,”), comprising:
two shafts which can be operated alternately as a burning shaft and as a regenerative shaft (p. 7 para. 2, “As can be seen in figure 1, the illustrated PFRK furnace is a straight double-vat 1, 2 where the fuel is injected alternately into one vat 1 and then into another 2 for approximately 12 'with a period of 'stop between cycles from G to 2' to reverse the circuits. This is the period of "inversion".”) and are connected to one another by means of a connecting channel (fig. 4, connecting flue 3), wherein a concurrent burning zone is formed in the shaft operated as a burning shaft (p. 7 para. 2, “The carbonate rock, loaded at the top of the tank via an inlet 5 in the open position, gradually descends into the latter. Combustion air is introduced at the top of the tank through a supply opening 6, which allows combustion of the fuel at the outlet of the lances 4 e † decarbonation of the carbonate rock into calcined material 10. The current gas 11 formed by combustion and decarbonation descends in co- --> current of the calcined material and, via the peripheral channel 13, passes into the connecting flue 3.”),
wherein each shaft includes, in a direction of flow of the material, an inlet, a preheating zone for preheating the material, a burning zone for burning the material and a cooling zone for cooling the material (p. 7 para. 2, “The tanks are † divided in height into three zones, the preheating zone A where the carbonate rock is † preheated before calcination, the combustion zone B where the firing of the carbonate rock takes place e † the cooling zone C where the cooling of the calcined material takes place.” Where inlet 5 is seen in fig. 1), and
wherein each shaft includes an exhaust gas outlet arranged inside or above the preheating zone for discharging exhaust gas from the shaft (p. 7 para. 3, “After heat exchange with the descending calcined material 10, the heated cooling air mixes with the gas stream 11 which, coming from the connecting flue 3, reaches the tank through the peripheral channel 13. This gas stream 11 progresses to at the top of the bowl where it is evacuated from the oven through an exhaust duct 14 e † transferred to a chimney 15. In the bowl in cooking mode 1, this exhaust duct 14 is † closed.”), wherein at least one exhaust gas outlet is connected to a gas inlet for admitting gas into at least one shaft (as seen in fig. 4 below, a portion of the exhaust gas in exhaust duct 14 is re-routed to the other shaft via the recirculation circuit 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach the inlet including an airtight lock configured to allow the solid material to be introduced while sealing against entry and escape of gases including ambient air.
Gleason teaches an airtight lock (fig. 1, air seal section 22) configured to allow solid material to be introduced while sealing against entry and escape of gases including ambient air (para. 34, “air seal sections 22 that reduce the exchange of air between the heating zone 20 of the oven chamber and the air outside the oven enclosure 12” where it is understood a workpiece enters through the air seal section).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Habib to implement a suitable air seal section, as taught by Gleason. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of reducing the exchange of air between the inside and outside of Habib’s kiln, as suggested by Gleason in para. 34, cited above.
Regarding claim 30. Modified Habib teaches the parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln of claim 29, wherein the gas inlet is arranged in the preheating zone of the shaft operated as a burning shaft (fig. 4, the exhaust gas in recirculation circuit 18 is shown to be introduced in to the top, or preheating zone, of the burning shaft).
Regarding claim 31. Modified Habib teaches the parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln of claim 29, wherein the gas inlet is arranged in the connecting channel and/or the burning zone of the shaft and/or a material-free space in the shaft (pp. 9-10, “It is also possible to further provide, in the connecting flue 3 and the peripheral channels 13, an injection of a fraction of said part taken from the gaseous effluent discharged from the furnace via an injection pipe 37.” See fig. 4).
Regarding claim 32. Modified Habib teaches the parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln of claim 29, wherein arranged between the exhaust gas outlet and the gas inlet (i.e. along recirculation circuit 18) is a heat exchanger (fig. 4, heat exchanger 36, p. 9 para. 4) and/or a heating device, a solar device or a combustion reactor (optional limitations, see mapping to alternative), for heating the exhaust gas (p. 9 para. 4).
Regarding claim 33. Modified Habib teaches the parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln of claim 29, wherein the cooling zone includes a cooling gas inlet for admitting cooling gas into the cooling zone (fig. 4, supply duct 7) and a cooling gas extraction device for discharging cooling gas from the shaft (fig. 4, collecting ring 25 and draw off element 26).
Regarding claim 34. Modified Habib teaches the parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln of claim 33, wherein the cooling gas extraction device is connected to a heat exchanger for heating the exhaust gas (fig. 4, the cooling gas from collecting ring 25 is sent to the heat exchanger 36).
Regarding claim 35. Modified Habib teaches the parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln of claim 33, wherein the cooling gas extraction device comprises a material-free space inside the cooling zone (fig. 4, it is understood that the collecting ring 25, per se, is not entirely full of material).
Regarding claim 36. Modified Habib teaches the parallel-flow regenerative shaft kiln of claim 29, wherein each shaft includes a combustion gas inlet for admitting combustion gas into the preheating zone and/or the burning zone (fig. 4, supply opening 6) and
wherein the combustion gas inlet is connected to an oxidizing agent line for conducting an oxidizing agent into the shaft (p. 8 para. 7, “A separation unit --> air 20 separates from the air supplied by pipe 21 with N2 discharged through pipe 22 and with O2 supplied to recirculation circuit 18 via supply pipe 23. This circuit 18 then conducts the oxidant mixture formed from the fraction recirculated gas effluent and concentrated O2 to the sum † of each of the tanks at the supply opening 6.”).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habib in view of Gleason as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of CN 105026333 A to Pringer.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Pringer.
Regarding claim 28. Habib teaches the method of claim 19 wherein the shafts each have at least one burner lance (fig. 4, lances 4, p. 7 para. 2, “When a tank is in cooking mode, here tank 1, a fuel supply device in the form of lances 4 injects into the tank a fuel 9, which, in the example illustrated, is natural gas.”)
But fails to teach wherein the exhaust gas is introduced into the burner lance.
Pringer teaches an exhaust gas introduced into a burner lance (p. 4 para. 4, “An inert or oxygen-depleted gas, especially nitrogen, carbon dioxide or kiln exhaust gas, via a burner lance is provided as coal transport medium. the coal gas for cooling and for realizing low-oxygen atmosphere in the burner tip region;”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Habib to implement a suitable burner lance, as taught by Pringer, which supplies coal via transport medium being kiln exhaust gas. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably allowing for coal to be used as the fuel source, as suggested by Pringer in the abstract.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 G 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights