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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP 2004093114 A), hereinafter Okada, in view of Mitani (US 6042371 A), hereinafter Mitani, in view of Fracke (US 3597141 A), hereinafter Fracke, and further in view of Izumi (US 20220290625 A1), hereinafter Izumi.
Regarding claim 6, Okada discloses a combustor comprising:
a combustion pipe having a cylindrical shape (“reference numeral 10 denotes a tubular combustion chamber” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference), the combustion pipe being opened at one end of the combustion pipe (“tip 10a of which is opened and serves as a discharge port for combustion exhaust gas”) and fixed to a closure wall at the other end of the combustion pipe (“rear end 10b”);
gas introduction pipes attached to the combustion pipe and introducing fuel and oxidized gas to the combustion pipe (“two nozzles 11a and 11c are fuel gas blowing nozzles, and two nozzles 11b and 11d are oxygen-containing gas blowing nozzles”); and
an igniter attached to a radial center portion of the closure wall and configured to ignite the fuel introduced by the gas introduction pipes to the combustion pipe (“an ignition spark plug 21 is attached to the rear end 10 b of the combustion chamber 10”), wherein
the gas introduction pipes are connected at one end of the gas introduction pipes to the combustion pipe, and the one end has a gas outlet through which the fuel and the oxidized gas flow to the combustion pipe (“four elongated slits 12 along the pipe axis direction are formed at four locations on the same pipe circumference of the combustion chamber 10 as nozzle injection ports to the combustion chamber 10. The nozzles 11a, 11b, 11c, and 11d, which are elongated in the tube axis direction, are connected”),
the gas introduction pipes in a tangential direction to an inner peripheral surface of the combustion pipe (“The injection directions of the nozzles 11 a, 11 b, 11 c, and 11 d are provided so as to be tangential to the inner peripheral surface of the combustion chamber 10”).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
556
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Okada does not disclose:
wherein the combustion pipe has a main body and a tapered portion that tapers from the main body to the closure wall;
a gas introduction pipe introducing ammonia and oxidized gas;
the main body of the combustion pipe has an insertion hole into which the gas introduction pipe is inserted,
the gas introduction pipe protrudes toward an inside of the main body of the combustion pipe through the insertion hole so that the gas outlet is accommodated in the combustion pipe, and
a difference between an outer radius of a proximal end of the tapered portion and an outer radius of a distal end of the tapered portion is equal to or smaller than an inner radius of the main body.
However, Mitani teaches:
a gas introduction pipe introducing fuel and oxidized gas;
the main body of the combustion pipe has an insertion hole into which the gas introduction pipe is inserted,
the gas introduction pipe protrudes toward an inside of the main body of the combustion pipe through the insertion hole so that the gas outlet is accommodated in the combustion pipe (“With respect to a ninth embodiment of the present invention, as illustrated in FIG. 9, the combustion chamber 6 has a transverse cross section having a substantially circular configuration. The regenerative combustion burner 1 is arranged so as to extend substantially tangential to the combustion chamber 6… The air supply and gas exhaust surface 23 of the regenerative combustion burner 1 is located inside the substantially circular furnace wall surface so that the burnt gas 8 returns to the regenerative combustion burner 1 from a rear side of the air supply and gas exhaust surface 23 of the regenerative combustion burner 1. Due to this structure and arrangement, the flow of the burnt gas 8 returning to the burner 1 is not opposed to the flow of the fuel and supply air 7 expelled from the burner 1” column 11, line 33).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Mitani’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:
a gas introduction pipe introducing fuel and oxidized gas;
the main body of the combustion pipe has an insertion hole into which the gas introduction pipe is inserted,
the gas introduction pipe protrudes toward an inside of the main body of the combustion pipe through the insertion hole so that the gas outlet is accommodated in the combustion pipe as is taught in Mitani, in the combustor disclosed by Okada because Mitani states “Due to this structure and arrangement, the flow of the burnt gas 8 returning to the burner 1 is not opposed to the flow of the fuel and supply air 7 expelled from the burner 1.” Therefore, including the arrangement will improve flow in Okada.
Okada, as modified by Mitani, does not disclose:
wherein the combustion pipe has a main body and a tapered portion that tapers from the main body to the closure wall;
wherein the fuel is ammonia;
a difference between an outer radius of a proximal end of the tapered portion and an outer radius of a distal end of the tapered portion is equal to or smaller than an inner radius of the main body.
However, Fracke teaches:
wherein the combustion pipe has a main body and a tapered portion that tapers from the main body to the closure wall;
a difference between an outer radius of a proximal end of the tapered portion and an outer radius of a distal end of the tapered portion is equal to or smaller than an inner radius of the main body (“The conically tapering burner 1 proper is joined with a cylindrical combustion chamber structure 7. This chamber structure has the same diameter as the outlet opening of the tapering burner 1 and is provided with further nozzles 8 for combustion air” column 2, line 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
598
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Fracke’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 combustion pipe has a main body and a tapered portion that tapers from the main body to the closure wall;
a difference between an outer radius of a proximal end of the tapered portion and an outer radius of a distal end of the tapered portion is equal to or smaller than an inner radius of the main body as is taught in Fracke, in the combustor disclosed by Okada because Fracke states “By virtue of the conical or parabolic shape of the tubular burner, the objectionable formation of a fuel ring in the vicinity of the bottom or fuel inlet region is avoided since the tapering design causes the combustion air to travel along the inner wall surface of the tubular burner from the interior in an outward direction” (column 1, line 38). Therefore, including a tapered portion will prevent the buildup of fuel.
Okada, as modified by Mitani and Fracke, does not disclose wherein the fuel is ammonia.
However, Izumi teaches wherein the fuel is ammonia (“an air-fuel mixture of ammonia and air is delivered to the fuel feed unit 6. The air-fuel mixture passes through the swirler 26 of the fuel feed unit 6, and the resulting swirling flow of the air-fuel mixture is delivered into the combustion cylinder 4” paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image5.png
640
516
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Izumi’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 gas introduction pipe introducing ammonia as is taught in Izumi, in the combustor disclosed by Okada because Izumi states “There is a growing demand for reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Against this background, ammonia is attracting attention as a promising alternative to carbon-based fuels. Ammonia is free of carbon, and thus combustion of ammonia does not produce carbon dioxide. Ammonia has already been used widely as a fertilizer, is inexpensive, and can be stably supplied. Ammonia is liquefiable at a pressure similar to that for liquefaction of LPG, and can be stored in liquid form at room temperature. Ammonia has many benefits as an alternative to carbon-based fuels” (paragraph [0002]). Therefore, including ammonia as a fuel in Okada will reduce emission of carbon dioxide and provide benefits as an alternative to carbon-based fuels.
Regarding claim 7, Okada, as modified by Mitani, Fracke, and Izumi, discloses the combustor according to claim 10, wherein the gas introduction pipe has a circular shape in cross-section (Figure 2).
Okada, as modified by Mitani, Fracke, and Izumi, does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an inner diameter of the gas introduction pipe to an inner diameter of the combustion pipe is 0.30 to 0.45. 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, Okada discloses a circular gas introduction pipe, but does not specifically recite the claimed ratio to the combustion pipe. Achieving the claimed ratio is a results-effective variable because diameter of the pipe relates to flow characteristics such a flow rate and laminar/turbulent flow regime. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diameter of the gas introduction pipe, because the selection of diameter to achieve desired flow characteristics constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Okada, as modified by Mitani, Fracke, and Izumi, discloses the combustor according to claim 6.
Okada, as modified by Mitani, Fracke, and Izumi, does not disclose the gas introduction pipe has a cross-sectional area that is defined so that mixed gas of the ammonia and the oxidized gas flows to the combustion pipe through the gas outlet at a flow velocity of 3 m/s to 25 m/s relative to a flow rate of the mixed gas. 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, Okada discloses a gas introduction pipe with a cross-sectional area, but does not specifically recite the claimed flow velocities. Achieving the claimed flow velocities is a results-effective variable because flow velocity of the mixture is related to the power output. 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 velocity of the mixture, because the selection of flow velocity to achieve desired power output constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mackaye (US 2408865 A)
PNG
media_image6.png
402
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Galliano (US 3758261 A)
PNG
media_image7.png
508
482
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Robbins (US 3804578 A)
PNG
media_image8.png
354
550
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Lee (US 20070202451 A1)
PNG
media_image9.png
392
392
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 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 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights